Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14[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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Packing problem[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

NOTE THAT THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CONTAIN DISCUSSION OF THE MATHEMATICAL ISSUE which is discussed at Sphere packing

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, MathWorld has an article, google returns 10k results on "circle packing". Why is this up for deletion? Slike2 01:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 10k results surely refer to the concept of sphere packing, not the concept described in this article. -- BD2412 talk 03:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, the 10k results do not refer to sphere packing, the first 10 results are explicitly about circle packing, though one of them does talk about hexagon packing along a spherical surface. Also, the fourth result is this, which is a book on the subject of circle (NOT sphere) packing. Slike2 00:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a circle is by definition a 1-sphere. The article on sphere packing clearly states this in the first paragraph. There does not exist a seperate mathematics. brenneman(t)(c) 01:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a fcommon enough mathematical concept and problem. Ben W Bell 07:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article discusses Karl Scherer's classification of them as a distinct type of entertainment puzzle, giving two basic examples. Circle and sphere packing is more properly discussed at sphere packing. ~~~~ 08:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if expanded and sourced, as per Slike2, otherwise delete. JamesBurns 02:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well-known mathematics conundrum. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these O.R. articles, please -Harmil 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Well known and difficult mathematical problem. — RJH 16:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Keep and expand would be great if it hadn't already been done in sphere packing. Although I am amused by the underwhelming description of the sphere packing problem as "hard". brenneman(t)(c) 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redwolf24 17:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the mathematical sphere packing and the computer science knapsack problem. --Carnildo 19:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant with sphere packing. siafu 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand: this is a branch of maths/physics which is undergoing rapid development. The classic problem was sphere packing, but current interest centers on many other shapes, including random figures and ellipsoids. In fact I don't understand why this and the next few pages are up for deletion anyway. Bambaiah 09:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as sphere packing is a sub-set of this general case. Peter Ellis 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? There is no general case in it. Besides, spheres are the general case, thanks to conformal mapping ~~~~ 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is a little misleading: if this were merely a matter of conformal mapping then it wouldn't change the number of nearest-neighbour contacts. Furthermore search on cond-mat arxiv in just the current year led me to 74 papers on packing problems. Moreover, I see no compelling reason presented by people who voted to delete (except for those who did this with the partial information that packing problems reduced to sphere or circle packings). Bambaiah 08:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously "sphere packing" is a general case of a "packing". The fact that the article as yet only gives examples of "sphere packings" and "circle packings" is irrelevant. Paul August ☎ 16:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: This is a legitimate and common mathematical problem. Monkeyman 14:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is very frustrating. I get the impression that many of the people voting to delete have never contributed to a math article, or are otherwise unaware of current topics of math research. Yet they feel confident to vote to delete? Sorry for that knee-jerk reaction, but this is a bit out of control. linas 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Strong keep As by linas. --R.Koot 15:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate mathamatical topic. Paul August ☎ 16:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oleg Alexandrov 17:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sphere packing article is about packing spheres in an unbounded space, while packing problem is about packing general objects (though at present only spheres are treated) in a bounded space. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A bounded space is a limited case of an unbounded space. I.e. it is a sub-topic. Limits are easy to apply, when the unbounded case is already solved extensively. ~~~~ 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Limits are not that easy. I challenge you to find a formula for how many circles can be packed in a square of size d by d. If you can (and it's correct), I'll vote delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Given a circle of size c then (((2d-(2+root(3))c)d)/(square(c)root(3))). General case is that HCP is most dense, so HCP. First consider tiled situation - circles with superscribed hexagons, determine number across square, also determine number down square (these are not the same as hexagon is not 90 degree rotational symmetry), this gives number of tiles total. There will always be fractional tiles at the boundary, so subtract them. Boundary wraps so this is easy. ~~~~ 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the optimal pattern is not always hexagonal. For instance, if the circle has diameter 1 and the square is 2-by-2, then you can fit 4 circles in the square, but only three if you insist on a hexagonal pattern. Returning to the VfD, I note that the American Mathematical Society lists "Spreads and packing problems" as 51E23 in their Mathematics Subjects Classification (link). You say that the article is "up for VFD as neologistic categorisation", but I don't see anything in the article talking about this classification. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't read "packing problems are one area where puzzles". ~~~~ 06:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could be expanded but discusses a currently vibrant branch of mathematics. Frankly, I'm a little surprised its even up for deletion. Chuck 19:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because despite the article title, it does not discuss the mathematical treatment, which is already described at sphere packing. ~~~~ 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why are there suddenly so many keep votes in one day when there was such a large gap before? ~~~~ 21:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Because somebody bothered to notify the people that would perhaps know about it here and here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ril: what is the point of this question? Paul August ☎ 02:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it definitely could use improvement... - dcljr (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Count Iblis 00:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user has 61 prior edits ~~~~ 21:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you have 2132 edits on VfD pages. One of the first pages I started here, DAMA/NaI, was listed for a VfD. There are a lot of people here that want wikipedia to dumb down. Count Iblis 21:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have 2132 edits on VFD, I have a total of 1392 edits on the entire Wikipedia: namespace. I also have 4688 edits to articles. See Kate's tool ~~~~ 13:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a more general problem,though it needs improvement Salsb 01:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add content. Karol 06:35, July 21, 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. Woohookitty 02:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disentanglement puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lots of google hits. Not a merge, since pictures would be lost. The pictures provide immediate explanation of what it is, where words would not be able to. Slike2 01:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reason that a merged article would have to eliminate the pictures. In fact, I think any acceptable merge (as I've voted) would surely include the pictures. Would you be amenable to merging if the photos were kept? —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • comment, a pretty decent article could be made if articles like wire puzzle were merged with and redirected to this article. Slike2 01:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, merge into mechanical puzzle until there's enough information to split it off. There is a fair amount of good information spread out through these many articles, but at this point it all just needs to be consolidated. —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I noticed the link to the german mechanical puzzle just now, and I'd agree. The stuff that's currently in mechanical puzzle needs to be cleared out, and each type can be left as headings (though that percise grouping is original research, it is a pretty decent array of puzzle types that should be included under mech puzzle). Slike2 02:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with mechanical puzzle. An article on this concept would be pretty useful—I'm surprised we don't already have one. The "types" should all be merged, though. (A wire puzzle is...gee...one that's made of wire...really, just listing the things they can be made of would cover this.) The German version looks like it's pretty good—could someone just translate it? -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into it wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle. This is the broadest of titles for such puzzles, and a combined article of the three would serve well. I would also recommend transferring/keeping the images from wire puzzle during the merge.Decapod73 02:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 27 prior edits ~~~~ 08:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious why you recommend merging into wire puzzle as the "broadest of titles", when mechanical puzzle is definitely more general and still encompasses the subject of this VfD and both of the articles you mentioned. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mechanical puzzle. JamesBurns 09:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these O.R. articles please -Harmil 15:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redwolf24 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Decapod73. And to save -Ril- time, I have 78 edits, not counting this one. Chuck 18:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have a few extra edits, I'll gadly let you borrow some of mine ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Almafeta 23:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Lochaber 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bambaiah 09:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as encyclopedic. Karol 09:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep linas 15:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --R.Koot 15:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a legitamate class of puzzles, deserving of its own article. Paul August ☎ 16:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oleg Alexandrov 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stop listing these things for deletion and take up merge/redirect issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games instead. - dcljr (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Count Iblis 00:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user has 62 prior edits ~~~~ 21:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My 62 prior edits are of much higher quality than your edits. Also I have a lot of edits before I made my account. Count Iblis 21:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. Also note that since I have over 7000 edits, many of them are inevitably going to be of less quality than others. ~~~~ 13:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste time trying to convince -Ril- you're not a sockpuppet. The admins around here are generally smart enough to distinguish the real sockpuppets from legitimate contributors who haven't been around for long. If I were worried about being discounted as a sockpuppet, I wouldn't have posted my own number of edits. Chuck 17:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand Salsb 01:44, 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 no consensus. Quite a lot of merge votes, but a substantial number of deletes and keeps. The article will be kept unchanged. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rattle puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

user has 63 prior edits ~~~~ 21:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Count Iblis 21:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as historic and ancyclopedic. Karol 06:30, July 21, 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. Copyright suspicions should be investigated at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly needs a bit of work jamesgibbon 00:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, remove all the original research, merge all the other karl scherer 'stuff' (articles listed at the above vfd) into it, leaving it to look like the rather good german article. Slike2 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned vote, not sure who by ~~~~ 08:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've been taking the time to check every voters edit count, that's a pretty funny comment :) Slike2 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. Karl Scherer is german. ~~~~ 08:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As are all germans, there's quite a few, and so are the 5 or so people who appear to have worked equally on that article. Unless, of course, they're all his sock puppets, in an elaborate scheme to make that article look good, just in case someone ever tries for a vfd over on the english side. Slike2 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ideally getting someone to translate the German article, which looks quite good. (Although admittedly I barely read German and can't really tell.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the rest, under whichever title makes the most sense. -- BD2412 talk 03:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep anc cleanup with merged articles from above into one. JamesBurns 09:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Oliver Keenan 12:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC) Weak Keep, reading the article shows it needs major cleanup. Oliver Keenan 12:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ok guys, I'm an inclusionist, but this is useless content that we may or may not choose to replace some day. Until then, take off and nuke the site from orbit. -Harmil 15:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio/Transwiki to wikisource. Most of the material on this page is a verbatim copy of [1]. Has this been through WP:CP already? I don't find anything to suggest that it has. While the original page says "Copyright 1999/2004 James Dalgety & Edward Hordern. You may freely distribute this document and the accompanying table in its entirety subject to acknowledging the source." this is not GDFL compatible, unless the entire text is explicitly declared an invariant section in the GDFL license statement. (The requirement to copy in its entiretly would seem to preclude subsequent editing.) So far as I am aware, we require GDFL for article text. --Tabor 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is copyright it will need to be removed immediately, regardless of votes. Could someone confirm this please? It needs to be GDFL, which requires us to be able to edit it freely, including removing any attribution. ~~~~ 06:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes most of the text (with some slight rewordings) comes from the site given above (and linked to in the article), and the copied text should probably be removed from the article. Paul August ☎ 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming copyvio issue is resolved. linas 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --R.Koot 16:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After removal of copyvio text (see my comment above), what is left will probably be only a stub. Nevertheless this is clearly an encyclopedic topic, as the German version attests — I've left a note on the talk page of that article asking for help translating it into english. Paul August ☎ 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oleg Alexandrov 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stop listing these things for deletion and take up merge/redirect issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games instead. - dcljr (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? We have already had 100+ deleted as original research/vanity/both. Neither original research nor vanity-articles are permitted. ~~~~ 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minus any copyvio. The German article looks within the realm of my translating ability so long as someone who knows this stuff well looks over the result, so I can volunteer my services replacing the copyvio text. The pictures are also quite nice. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite Salsb 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know enough about puzzles to ascertain if this is original research or not. Karol 06:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep

Count Iblis 21:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user has 64 prior edits ~~~~ 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Count Iblis 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:03, 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 no consensus. Sorry but it's still no consensus. Woohookitty 07:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transport puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can see no good reason to delete it jamesgibbon 01:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the top hits are Wikipedia and mirrors, making this a neologism and/or original research. Niteowlneils 01:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it wasn't started by karl, but it's still an odd and unneccisary article. Slike2 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, at least. -- BD2412 talk 03:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mechanical puzzle. JamesBurns 09:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Niteowlneils -Harmil 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: this is a valid class of games (includes checkers, chess, and many other lesser known games). It is a nice starting stub, and a good place to branch off from. I see no good reason to delete. --Bambaiah 11:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand why this is even an issue, and why people who don't contribute to any math articles feel its socially acceptable to VfD math articles. linas 15:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I see absolutly no reason to delete this. --R.Koot 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 17:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stop listing these things for deletion and take up merge/redirect issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games instead. - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Laura Scudder | Talk 23:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user has 60 prior edits ~~~~ 21:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Quality (i.e. starting or contributing to high quality pages) not quantity (chatting on talk pages) should count. Count Iblis 22:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand and reference;nice subject Salsb 01:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this description of a popular class of puzzles. Karol 06:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be a good name, and considering the content of the article, there are already tour puzzle and river crossing puzzle, and the remaining ones would be better characterized by the principle of finite amount of states that you can change by some rules (like chess puzzle).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The article will be kept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wire puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with disentanglement puzzle, a pretty decent article could be made of these types of puzzles, I think. Slike2 01:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to disentanglement puzzle Decapod73 02:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with mechanical puzzle (or disentanglement puzzle, if kept). -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the rest, under whichever title makes the most sense. -- BD2412 talk 03:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mechanical puzzle. JamesBurns 09:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into disentanglement puzzle (or mechanical puzzle, if disentanglement puzzle ends up being merged into that). To save -Ril- time, I have 79 prior edits. Chuck 18:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • strong strong keep. Wire puzzles are interesting, notable, eminently wikifiable. They deserve a page to themselves. Merging with disentanglement puzzle misses the point: wire puzzles appear in literature (can't quite find it right now but I think it was Stephen Potter), have uses in psychology (frustration management), appear in discussions of topology, all in ways unique to wire puzzles. There are notable companies that specialize in wire puzzles. One nearly cost me my sanity when I was a boy. What kind of engineering tolerances are necessary to make a wire puzzle? Is there a go/no go gauge in the factory? If so, how does it work; if not, what kind of quality control is in place? What is the rejection rate in such factories? Are wire puzzles made by hand, or some weird machine? Keep it! I read somewhere that they were being made as early as 1880. What kind of hardware did those guys have? I want to know the answer to these questions, and its much more likely that some knowledgeable wikipedian will do us the service of editing a page on wire puzzles if such a page existed. Robinh 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that I believe you. I think what you are referring to is the game where people have to avoid touching the wire, which is a different thing entirely. ~~~~ 06:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply Hi Ril four tildes. What do you mean you don't believe me? Which bit don't you believe? I can dig out the Stephen Potter reference. The puzzle I'm referring to is sometimes called the "twisted nail puzzle". The "avoid touching the wire game" is totally unrelated. I repeat: which bit don't you believe? regards, Robinh 07:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply II. Hello again Ril four tildes. Me again. Right, I understand why you don't believe me. The problem is that there are two different types of wire puzzle. The first type, as discussed in wire puzzle, involves the topology of the system. The type I was thinking of has two twisted nails, which cannot be separated unless held at precisely the right angle, and gently eased apart. This type (AFAICS) isn't mentioned on wire puzzle. Maybe we should make a page called twisted nail puzzle and everyone would be happy. Come to think of it, I'll do it at lunchtime today. Best wishes Ril, Robinh 09:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, good points, but I think that if merged it will allow the section to expand naturally until it becomes too big for that article, at which point it will be moved out into its own. If you can provide enough information to make that article more than a stub, then I would vote keep as well.Slike2 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply Hi Slike2. That's fair enough. I'm afraid I don't regard myself as sufficiently knowledgeable to add material. Not right now anyway. But I do plan to do some research on the topic. What is the point of merging a perfectly good stub, only to have to hive it off later? best wishes Robinh 07:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. -- Lochaber 14:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. Agree that these are fascinating as puzzles and as constructs, but that if the section grows it will naturally become an article in itself later. --Bambaiah 11:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; this has the potential to grow into a full-length article. linas 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as I, again, so absolutly no reason to delete this. --R.Koot 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it deserves its own article. Otherwise merge and redirect to disentanglement puzzle. Paul August ☎ 17:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stop listing these things for deletion and take up merge/redirect issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Games instead. - dcljr (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like linas, I think there's potential here. --Laura Scudder | Talk 23:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepCount Iblis 21:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user has 65 prior edits ~~~~ 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Quality (i.e. starting or contributing to high quality pages) not quantity (chatting on talk pages) should count. Count Iblis 22:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste time trying to convince -Ril- you're not a sockpuppet. The admins around here are generally smart enough to distinguish the real sockpuppets from legitimate contributors who haven't been around for long. If I were worried about being discounted as a sockpuppet, I wouldn't have posted my own number of edits. Chuck 17:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep these articles have potential Salsb 01:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this ligitimate article. Karol 06:24, July 21, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wire-and-string puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

For the reason to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

user has 66 prior edits ~~~~ 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Quality (i.e. starting or contributing to high quality pages) not quantity (chatting on talk pages) should count. Count Iblis 22:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't waste time trying to convince -Ril- you're not a sockpuppet. The admins around here are generally smart enough to distinguish the real sockpuppets from legitimate contributors who haven't been around for long. If I were worried about being discounted as a sockpuppet, I wouldn't have posted my own number of edits. Chuck 17:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect and merge to word game. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)`[reply]

Word puzzle[edit]

Sorry about this, but Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer ended with no consensus, due to many people voting to keep simply because they didn't want to vote on all the articles listed at once, so now they are listed seperately. This is the VfD for

NOTE THAT Word game ALREADY CONTAINS ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION

  • NOTE THAT THE ABOVE IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT. In fact, word game is a junkier article than this one. linas 15:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE THAT THE ABOVE IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT, I.e. the statement that the statement that word game already contains relevant information is not true is itself not true. because someone merged word puzzle into word game before I put this up for VfD. ~~~~ 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For other reasons to delete this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-redundant parts with word game, leave redirect to it. Slike2 01:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to word game. There's basically nothing worth merging, but it's worth having as a redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to word game, as the merge has already been done. -- BD2412 talk 03:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Word game, very little if anything to merge. JamesBurns 09:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:BD2412 -Harmil 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. --Carnildo 19:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, by which I mean delete then redirect, just for the record. Radiant_>|< 08:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the grounds that the BOLD FACE STATEMENT is a fraudulent claim intended to induce delete votes. linas 15:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the BOLD FACE STATEMENT is a genuine claim resulting from the fact that another user already merged word puzzle into word game before I VFD'd it. ~~~~ 22:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge although I'm almost getting as upset as linas. --R.Koot 16:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The BOLD FACE statement is false, as will be seen by clicking on the two articles. The list should be cept while it has redlinks, although thereafter this cries out to become a category. Septentrionalis 17:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it should be noted that the list has redlinks because the articles redlinked-to were VFD'd as intrinsically (due to the neologistic categorisation) original research. ~~~~ 22:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. looking at the two articles word puzzle and word game (as of July 19) I found valid content in word puzzle that is not in word game. I have now merged that content into the word game (since it was the most complete). The content of that article should be named "word game" or "word puzzle" whichever seems most appropriate, and the other name should redirect to it. Paul August ☎ 18:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Word game. - dcljr (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Word game maybe break off when there is more content Salsb 01:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge redirect. The beginning of word game reads: A word game or word puzzle.. Karol 06:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Count Iblis 21:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
user has 67 prior edits ~~~~ 21:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a large number of edits from the time before I made my user account. I have started a number of high quality scientific pages here. Quality (i.e. starting or contributing to high quality pages) not quantity (chatting on talk pages) should count. Count Iblis 22:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then sign here when logged out, so that it proves your statement that you are the same as the IP that made those edits. ~~~~ 13:00, 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, sadly. Hedley 23:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liene Buldure[edit]

Stub bio of a young woman whose only claim to fame is having run naked across the pitch at a Latvian football match. That, and an excuse to show a picture of her topless are the only reasons for this article's existence. Calton | Talk 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Streaking in itself is not enough in itself to establish notability. While the article claims involvement in a Latvian TV program, it doesn't outline what role she plays suggesting that her role in the program is not prominent. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Dcarrano 01:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable attention seeker. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Her 15 minutes of fame didn't even last 15 minutes, but they were long enough to catch the attention of a good number of Latvian magazines and newspapers. She was (apparently) also Latvia's first football streaker [2] Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN A curate's egg 15:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless notability can be established from the Latvian media. siafu 22:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not that notable. --Etacar11 00:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. I am from Latvia and I can confirm that she really created a fuss in the society. At that time football and reality TV were in the focus of Latvian society and she got inside both. However, most of the fuss was about "why is such fuss about her?". If you asked me about whether she'd be remembered in 10 years, I'd say that some will remember her for sure, but already today I feel that nobody really cares. --Jūzeris ⇐ feedback appreciated 14:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More notable than Joan Roney in home country. - Tεxτurε 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is verifiable, and meets WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." I say it stays, although that image looks like copyvio. --Dmcdevit·t 07:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepI don't know which is worse -- that this woman has an entry or that a dozen people care enough to vote on it! (Unsigned vote by 64.171.185.113 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Kull[edit]

Google hits suggest that this is vanity. —Cryptic (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax, vanity, unverifiable, etc. etc. etc. Dcarrano 01:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Pburka 02:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. quite obviously a vanity page. suffice to say i made an article like this on my first day at wikipedia, out of sheer curiosity. perhaps we should make an effort to invite this person into the fold. --jonasaurus 02:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but amusing. royblumy 21:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 09:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, send to Wiki-Hell. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN A curate's egg 15:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity/apocrypha/patent nonsense. siafu 22:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silliness --Stevefarrell 23:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/pointless. --Etacar11 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all aforementioned reasons. Matjlav 20:21, 20 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 HMS Pinafore. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

When I was a lad[edit]

This page merely duplicates content already at HMS Pinafore (minor commentary) and Wikisource:HMS Pinafore (lyrics). I would say "Transwiki to Wikisource", except that it's already there! Quuxplusone 01:14, 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 merge and redirect to Kabaa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born in the Kabaa[edit]

Mostly procedural, filling a redlink on the Vfd page. That said, any article where the external links vastly outweigh the internal content gives me pause. Looking at the contrib's talk page has deep concerns about edit wars and POV editing. I have previously watched this editor because most of their new articles lack context to know what they are about (EG Salma Umm-ul-Khair), and are usually word-for-word from another website[3]. I have only not marked them as copyvio in case they are based on some religous text(s), even tho' that seems unlikely as they usually only appear on one or two other websites. Bottom line, I don't really feel qualified to vote as I don't want to take the time to figure out what in blazes is going on here. Niteowlneils 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the page needs to be moved to List of people born in the Kaaba. I don't feel that this is an amazingly encyclopedic list topic, but then again, it's more encyclopedic than a list of songs about drugs other than heroin, or Pokemons, so abstain. - Mustafaa 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kaaba. As Mustafaa alluded to, we have much less encylopedic lists already extant on Wikipedia. The article is apparently well-researched, as well. My only concern is the name; "List of people born in the Kabaa" is a bit of an anti-climax once you see the article and realize that there's only two names on the whole list and its unlikely to ever grow. I'd say merge into the existing Kaaba article. Fernando Rizo 02:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kabaa per Rizo. It never makes sense to have a list with two items.--Pharos 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kabaa. To answer one of the points in the discussion below, if there is controversy over who exactly was or was not born there, that can be discussed too; the article doesn't have to claim everything as a fact, and shouldn't if something is disputed. (Actually just another reason to have it not be a list.) Dcarrano 05:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kabaa. JamesBurns 09:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kabaa per Fernando Rizo -Harmil 15:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kabaa, give a smal section to report the conradictions. --Striver 16:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

A Shi'a editor named Striver, upset at being told that he couldn't fill the Ali ibn Abu Talib article with Muslim oral traditions (hadith) proving that Ali was the only person in history born inside the Kaaba, created this article, List of people born in the Kaaba, and linked all the hadith to it.

After some controversy at the Ali article, Mustafaa added a sentence saying that Shi'a Muslims claim Ali was born in the Kaaba. This was not enough for Striver, who has created this inane and un-encyclopedic article. I think the sentence in the Ali article is enough. Zora 22:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it Zora, Mustafaa said in my talk page that i could creat that!

--Striver 22:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I don't agree with Mustafaa? Perhaps if there's any discussion of this issue, it should be in an article with a different name and a different format? The article's title is POV, in that it assumes the matter to be proved. The article's format is bad, in that it's your usual list of hadith, without any argument, explanation, background, anything. And I don't think it's OK for you to just wipe the VFD template off the page in question and assume that this settles the matter. Zora 22:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then make a vote for making those changes, not a vote for deleting the article!
--Striver 23:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, the actual VfD is on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people born in the Kaaba for some reason. I've already explained my position there. - Mustafaa 02:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Previous history at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of people born in the Kaaba. - Mustafaa 02:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Question If we merge it to the Kabaa article will this links follow:






--Striver 03:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not Wikipedia's mission to provide unchanging article URLs to which external websites can link without needing maintainance. In particular, WP's purpose is not to serve as an authoritative reference for a topic which has no verifiability except millennium-old oral traditions. Merge into Kaaba, explaining the (largely-theological-BS) dispute between factions. If this point were a major reason that Sunni and Shi'a Muslims are killing each other in Iraq and elsewhere, then I would support a stand-alone article on the topic, but not a "list" of two people with dubious (and mutually contradictory!) verifiability. Barno 15:12, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Therapies[edit]

As far as I can see, the subject of this page was created by the owner of Chi Herbal in order to promote that company. I think this term is marketing mumbo jumbo and this article should be deleted. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but this article needs to stop sounding like an ad in any event. Lupin 01:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article created to attract business. Also spiritual harmonizing of chi is not a commonly accepted theory.--jonasaurus 02:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above royblumy 06:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send spammer to Wiki-Hell!!!!. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commercial exploitation of Chi is not a commonly accepted theory. Commercial exploitation of Wikipedia is not a commonly accepted theory. Barno 15:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam, truly weird POV. If there were any useful information, I would vote redirect to Chi. siafu 22:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'nuff said. --DrTorstenHenning 14:42, 25 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!) 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano DellaVigna[edit]

Not Notable, no content, nothing links here Delete J E Bailey 01:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google shows not notable, and artilce has no content. Decapod73 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article not notable, and has no potential for additional content. --jonasaurus 02:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--GrandCru 03:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. siafu 22:45, 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1secondfilm[edit]

The promoters of this project give permission to use this in Wikipedia, howver the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote upcoming events. Delete. --nixie 01:52, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Heath[edit]

Vanity page about a college athlete Mrendo 02:00, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Maddox[edit]

Finishing VfD nom, this is from the nominator's edit summary. --Dmcdevit·t 02:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC):

"This article is redundant, either delete it, or merge it with Maddox's own article, because really, his fansites aren't important." User:EliasAlucard

I like pizza pie... Oh, let it be, it isn't in anyone's way :) (preceding unsigned comment by 24.17.212.172 08:16, July 13, 2005 UTC)

  • Merge into The Best Page In The Universe. Not notable enough for its own article, and I doubt that many searches come in for "Friends of Maddox." Fernando Rizo 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough to merge. They don't even have their own site anymore. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this site is not notable enough to be merged. It is not even linked to on maddox's own page. --jonasaurus 02:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable web site, defunct fansites don't need to be merged into articles. Dcarrano 05:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fansite. JamesBurns 09:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not significant enough to be a proper article --Exir Kamalabadi |
  • Delete I am the owner of hitchikernet.com and friendsofmaddox. This artilce may as well be deleted. ~Darax
  • Delete Yeah, this page isn't very useful. There's no point of it, really.

Contributions 14:05, 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 keep the completely rewritten disambiguation article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GAFB[edit]

Neologism Denni☯ 00:39, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • Delete. Practically all of the first five pages of google hits (and for an internet initialism, there aren't very many at all) are for George Air Force Base. —Cryptic (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After much searching on Google, I did find some verifiable uses of this term. (With less than 400 hits after weeding out Wikipedia clones and "air force base", which is hardly notable for a term supposedly used on the internet.) The acronym seems to be commonly used for either Goodfellow Air Force Base or George Air Force Base, which confuses the issue. Most of those <400 were for one of the bases. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as a Four Letter Acronym to the two AFB's. But delete the current neologism first. -- BD2412 talk 03:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and disambig per BD2412. Keep after rewrite. Dcarrano 05:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. royblumy 06:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten article as 4LA disambiguation, per Aranel and BD2412. Uncle G 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. --jonasaurus 20:50, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GMW[edit]

Delete. The article is uninformative - what does GMW even stand for? Where are they located? - and a stub. It hasn't been categorised, a google search for "GMW summerclash" yielded no results and the company is apparently scheduled to close, so it seems unlikely that this article will be fruitful in the future. There are thousands of small wrestling promotions in the world and they definitely aren't all worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. McPhail 12:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand or redirect to Green Mountain Wrestling Delete. The current article is based on a possible vanity wrestling "wrestling promotion", although a google search for "GMW Wrestling" spawns many references to a promotion called Green Mountain Wrestling. After googling "Green Mountain Wrestling" (In quotations), it has ties with NWA. I don't think it is notable enough to warrant an entry at WP. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 14:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) - updated 08:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fake --- Paulley 13:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely useless article.--Pathogen 19:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Chrysaor July 7, 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. possibly fake. --jonasaurus 03:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. royblumy 06:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 09:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:19, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GMW Heavyweight Championship[edit]

  • Delete - no google hits, a stub, no lineage - the article is completely uninformative and doesn't seem remotely notable. McPhail 12:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fake, no such wrestler or promotion in the UK--- Paulley 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. royblumy 06:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --jonasaurus 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/hoax, as with all related articles. --Etacar11 00:21, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Noble[edit]

Delete. A search for "Gary Noble" and "GMW" yielded no results. I'd say he's non-notable, as he works for a company that (a) is not listed on google, so apparently hasn't reached the attention of the media and (b) is apparently scheduled to close soon. This may also be a vanity. McPhail 12:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Matuszewski[edit]

Delete. A search for "Michael Matuszewski" and "GMW" yielded no results. I'd say he's non-notable, as he works for a company that (a) is not listed on google, so apparently hasn't reached the attention of the media and (b) is apparently scheduled to close soon. This may also be a vanity. McPhail 12:33, 18 Jun 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cheng[edit]

non notable person, search showed 1 possibly relevant result which was a bc.edu student userpage, appears to be a vanity page Jtkiefer 02:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the above mentioned reasons. Jtkiefer 02:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above. AlbertR 03:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually it looks more like an attack page. -- BD2412 talk 03:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete appears to have been made to harass person.--GrandCru 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per above royblumy 06:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Already speedied Stewart Adcock 07:27, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Evelyn Seely[edit]

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 162.83.241.167 tonight, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but most, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Ken 03:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Gwk 03:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 09:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is neither encyclopedia nor is it notable. --jonasaurus 20:53, 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 deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 23:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Michael E. Brooks[edit]

Vanity, non-notable, etc. —Cryptic (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. Gwk 03:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 06:21, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --jonasaurus 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:25, 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, unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 01:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Bank of China[edit]

Non-notable institution and non-encylcopedic. There are plenty of companies that shouldn't be listed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies.--GrandCru 03:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is the claim is true that its the forth largest ank in the PRC then this bank is very notable. --nixie 03:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable institution. Gwk 03:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Ombudsman 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable bank as member of Fortune Magazine Global 500 in 2004 meaning that it is one of the 500 biggest companies in the world see [4]. It has an estimated turnover of $13.3 billion. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As mentioned above, the bank is one of the largest finanical institutions in China and a major global company, to China, as important as Citibank or Bank of America in the USA Howee 06:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep It's as notable as any other large scale financial institution, many of which have entries. Could do with expanding though. Ben W Bell 07:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This bank is of a similar asset size to Wachovia and Wells Fargo. It's a much more significant topic than any of the five articles the nominator has started. CalJW 09:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIV. brenneman(t)(c) 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being one of the big four banks in China is clearly adequate justification for an article. Does need expanding though.Average Earthman 15:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a Keep - there is scope for expansion/the fourth largest bank of China, a country with the largest population in the world should find a place in wikipedia.--Bhadani 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article should be able to be expanded. --jonasaurus 20:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the heck is this on VfD??? Its EVERYWHERE in China.... Speedy Keep. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:57, 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 redirect to Radio Vago. There were 5 delete, 2 redirect and 1 merge, so there is no consensus for an outright deletion, but a clear consensus to discard the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Gillaspy[edit]

  • Delete - Vanity, non-notable Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:40, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Radio Vago. JamesBurns 09:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --jonasaurus 20:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Radio Vago, though I'm not sure "looks more like a bear than a lizard" is really wikipedia material to begin with. siafu 22:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Foods? Fun facts? vanity. --Etacar11 00:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Radio Vago, nothing worth merging. Dcarrano 01:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing here worth keeping, so nothing worth redirecting either. -Splash 01:13, 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: 9k, 3d. -Splash 01:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic (band)[edit]

I'm unable to find a significant reason why this band should be listed, other than the fact they make original music. They haven't really been part of any musical milestones. Scaryrobot 13:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 03:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Since when are only artists involved in "musical milestones" listed on Wikipedia? Granted, this article should be expanded, but by no means deleted. Galactic is a well known band, even to a casual listener of funk such as myself. They have a significant AllMusic.com entry and 859,000 google results (for Galactic+band), many of which are CD and concert reviews in major media sources. royblumy 06:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as meeting Wikimusic project guidelines. Their Allmusic.com entry shows five albums most released on major labels or significant independent labels, most of which have made the Billboard contemporary jazz charts. According to Allmusic.com, they have also supported significant artists such as The Meters, Maceo Parker and Medeski, Martin and Wood see [5].Capitalistroadster 06:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 09:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Capitalistroadster's research, the band satisfies the WikiProject Music notability and music guidelines. Scaryrobot, contrary to your edit history comment you can explain the significance. (If the editor who had tagged your article had used the {{music-importance}} tag, you would have known this sooner.) Take a look at the guidelines and please add a discography to your article. Keep. Uncle G 11:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep jamesgibbon 12:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Five albums meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Cyclone49 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster. --TheMidnighters 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this article satisfies the WikiProject Music notability and music guidelines --jonasaurus 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Touring nationally satisfies guidelines. siafu 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. quite notable, especially in the jam-band circuit. Dystopos 05:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mocheeze 07:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gauchos Pesados[edit]

Vanity page? Definitely not remarkable, 6 Google matches. On the other hand, not everything is on the net, and the article is self-contained, complete and well written. Nevertheless, I propose to delete it.--Marianocecowski 15:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Vanity of non remarcable music group. --Marianocecowski 15:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ¿Non remarcable music group?. It's the group that initiated the genre that later made bands like Ráfaga become famous worldwide. The group itself is not famous, but at least you can link it from the glamorous cumbia article. This band used to have a web page, years ago when they were a little famous in their region. The legacy is the music they invented, not the band work itself. It deserved, at least, to be a link from "glamorous cumbia". Remember that some people and some places are not so computerized. I'm not related to any person of the band. Even more, I never got the chance to talk to them. I don't live near their area. On the other side, it's true that I was and I still am a fan of the band and that I like their music. But people that reads the glamorous cumbia article perhaps want to know about the creators of the genre. Another example: Nobody remembers the group Smile, but it invented the style that Queen took to become famous. So, let's see if I explained myself: I don't want to argue, and I do not want to bother anyone. But this band deserves at least a link from the article of the musical genre. It's not vanity. It's history. Thank you. User:200.73.180.22
  • Keep. It's a lower-class band from a country where net access is not as widespread as US- and Euro-centric Wikipedia POV seems to consider normal; it's far less likely to be indexed by Google. It certainly achieved some notoriety in its time; I don't think its being a local phenomenon precludes listing it in Wikipedia. Taragui 07:24, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Allmusic is not aware of them and Google has limited records. As a contemporary band that has supposedly released a number of albums, one would think that there would be more than six Google hits. Google indexes what is present. Argentina has a reasonable internet presence. I suspect a hoax with little verifiable information. The "glamorous cumbria" seems suspicious too. Capitalistroadster 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish that the information within is verifiable and without any allmusic.com presence or any other substantiation, I must vote delete. Gamaliel 05:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they wouldn't be the first little-heard yet influential band (Pylon, New York Dolls, etc.), but unless cites showing their influence can be provided, delete. Dcarrano 05:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above royblumy 06:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true: 2 - Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country*. -Mariano 10:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : Non verifiable - would reconsider if some verifiable references are added to the article. A/B 'Shipper 女 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably more notable than many American bands which are kept. CalJW 16:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably? I'd gladly vote keep if someone actually produced some evidence that this assertion was true. Gamaliel 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article should be deleted for non-notoriety. If, in the future, however, the band is able to pass the google test then it should be allowed to stay.
  • Keep Per [[6]]. Though "large or medium sized country" is undefined, I doubt Argentina would fail to meet the criteria. siafu 22:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have now done a Google search for this band [7]. There are no references to this band locatable from a Google search other than Wikimedia and its mirrors. This heightens my concerns about the verifiability of this band. No change of vote from delete.Capitalistroadster 23:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable per above, also no presence on allmusic.com so probably fails WP:MUSIC in any case. In case of hard evidence being obtained, I'll change my vote of course. -Splash 01:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable, so deletion is required. Quale 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First. Most bands and singers in here are not on allmusic.com, while all of them exist with varying degrees of sucess in the argentine cumbia scene. The fact that the site of one of the main venues of the cumbia scene in Buenos Aires lists those bands makes me think they're rather on the "sucessful" section of "varying degrees of success", so I think the "is not in allmusic.com" argument to be faulty. Second, cumbia is a very low-class musical expression in argentina, a country which has around 50% of it's population living in poverty -hence no access to internet, let alone upload some page about some lesser known band-, so I consider the "no references on google" to be faulty too in this case. On a side note, the author seems too eager to put this thing here, and links the bands article to pages that shouldn't (ie: Cumbia, see talk:Cumbia for why I consider a lesser known band of Argentine Cumbia shouldn't be on that article). I don't know the band, perhaps because I hardly know the scene, but -personally- I wouldn't even consider including this article on wikipedia. On the other hand... meta:Wiki_is_not_paper#No_size_limits turns my opinion into Keep, sadly On a last comment, to User:200.73.180.22: Nobody remembers the group Smile, but it invented the style that Queen took to become famous., Smile turned into Queen, they're not unrelated. SpiceMan 06:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had 4.910 hits of Google, not 6. Here is the direction. http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&q=gauchos+pesados&meta=

But when looking for "gauchos pesados" I had 72 hits (http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&q=%22gauchos+pesados%22&meta=). Try it if you want. 72 hits is enough for a band of a genre that is not very computerized. Google standards should be lower for less computerized places. On the other hand, I think people who remember this band is computerized, because, as I said on the article, glamorous cumbia was not for lower-class people, but for upper-class (take the example of Ráfaga, the best exponent of the glamorous cumbia genre, for which I made an article too). To say glamorous cumbia is a lower-class music is like saying that The Black Eyed Peas is a lower-class music in the United States. Everyone listen to them. And the same with Eminem. And another thing: don't be fooled with the statistics, because it may be true that 50 percent of people in Argentina lives in bad conditions. That is in the ugly zone of the country. But in Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Córdoba and all the provinces of the South, people has a lot of money. Take myself for example: I don't have more money than all the people I know, but everyone in my town (including me) has everything (internet with a high connection, flat TV, DVD with home theatre, a nice house with garden and a swimming pool; and everyone has a third grade or university degree (I'm a publicist creative) and speaks at least spanish and english (I speak portuguese and italian too). But I'm not a millionaire. It's simply that this is the status in the richer zones of Argentina. So don't pay attention to the news that shows tha bad parts of the country. We're not mixed with lower-class people. They have their own provinces and cities, and rich people or people who lives well we have our own cities and towns (in my case, a private neighbourhood). So stop talking about Argentina like it is Camerun, Rwanda or Afganistan. It's not like this. Is a country formed by immigrants from Europe. And a great country, indeed (at least half of it).

those 4.910 are all either unrelated to the band or from wikipedia or it's mirrors. The 72 figure on "gauchos pesados" are all wikipedia articles the author has created or modified to include the band (Wikipedia or it's offsprings...) That is to say: 0 reference on it besides wikipedia. SpiceMan 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

Observations:

  1. Nobody from the Argentine users have ever heard of the band.
  2. All google hits are from the Wikipedia or mirrors of it.

-Mariano 07:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE Note that this ip has been used to add numerous hoaxes, vandalized pages, add entries about nonnotable soccer teams (like neighborhood teams), misleading information, etc. See Blue tiger, Rana lechuza, Vandera, and the author's talk page User_talk:200.73.180.22 therefore I have grounds to believe that this non notable band is indeed not wikipedia material.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Opinions are too heterogeneous on this article for consensus. The article will be kept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Carey[edit]

Having a famous sister does not make a person notable in her own right. —Cryptic (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, Delete --nixie 04:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 06:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mariah Carey. JamesBurns 09:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mariah Carey. Ken 13:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect as above. Radiant_>|< 14:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge The information should be added to mariah carrey's page, as all interest focused on Alison Carey is likely localized from Mariah anyway. --jonasaurus 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Notable, but not seperate from Mariah Carey. siafu 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with her sister. --Etacar11 00:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has recently gained quite a bit of notoriety. -- Judson 23:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mariah Carey is not the President; I don't think her sister getting into legal problems is worth mentioning in Mariah's article, or in an article unto itself. Dcarrano 23:46, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cadence Website Design[edit]

Advertising. —Cryptic (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ad for non-notable company. Gwk 04:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert royblumy 06:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisment and spam --jonasaurus 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SPAM. siafu 23:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 00:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SPAM. (Unsigned vote by Vizcarra)
  • Delete: advertisement IINAG (Vote actually by 82.37.241.191 (talk · contribs), don't forget to sign in)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 09:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chivydog Productions[edit]

Self-promotion for company created by user of the same name, would be inappropriate to move to the user sapce. Delete --nixie 04:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advert. Gwk 04:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert royblumy 06:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement --jonasaurus 21:04, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Maddela[edit]

I suggest that this page be deleted. It appears to be a vanity page with little to no general interest. Also, I believe it to be factually incorrect, as just by doing an internet search on Maddela a large number of indiviuals pop up, contradicting the article's claim. -- Ithacagorges 0:08 July 7 2005

  • Delete and Redirect to Maddela, Quirino, a municipality in the Philippines. TheCoffee 04:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This page had a VFD tag placed on it on July 7, but apparently wasn't added to the pages to be voted on. I added it here July 14. TheCoffee 04:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above royblumy 06:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable family vanity. JamesBurns 09:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete and do not redirect. This is a textbook vanity page. --jonasaurus 21:06, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California College Republicans[edit]

Delete. Advertising and vanity. There's nothing here but their constitution and some vanity pics. We should have College Republicans and College Democrats articles, of course, but do we really need one for each state? What does this tell us that makes it different from, say, Rhode Island College Republicans? Gamaliel 04:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article neither forcefully promotes the club in an advertising capacity, nor would it qualify under the claim of vanity (the definition of which being: excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishment). This page neither brags nor boasts of CCR's accomplishments, nor offers ANY side of opinions, therefore unbiased. CCR is an important faces of College Republicans that played an important role in the most recent CRNC election process, the main contender for the Chair position of which being from our state, and CCR's past Chairman (Michael Davidson). The pictures posted could only be misconstrued as vain if Frank Sinatra's mug shot could be considered a photo shoot. Portraits are an efficient way to illustrate the organization's leadership, just like Howard Dean's page shows, as does George W. Bush's page does. California College Republicans is a state federation that is on the forefront of the College Republican national organization; as is such, and what with the dealings of CCR's in the national College Republican playing feild, the California College Republican wiki-site has total justification for its existence. Kelly Quiggle 10:12, 13 July 2005 (PST)
  • Delete, from the content of the article it looks like Wikipedia is hosting this organisations website.--nixie 05:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. This organization appears to be active at several dozen universities (per the list on their website) and thus could be considered notable. However, the current article isn't particularly informative and the constitution is useless to someone outside of the organization. - Thatdog 05:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. tregoweth 05:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity royblumy 06:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Political vanity. Inclusion of that mug shot in an article about an organization implies quite a bit about the motivation of its author, so I think "vanity" is a fair description. --Calton | Talk 06:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, most college clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 07:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say merge into College Republicans, which rightly has an article, but there's no significant info here. This is vanity in both the Wikipedia sense and the general sense, especially given the mugshot currently in the article and the candid photos that were in it previously. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is some information that isn't implied by "California", "College", and "Republican" separately. Peter Grey 19:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dwain 20:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article is non notable self promotion. it is of no significance whatsoever. --jonasaurus 21:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is 3760 Google hits for "California College Republicans" not good enough for us? It does have an ad-like tone to it, and that picture's gotta go, but that's a task for cleanup, not deletion. Did noone look this up on Google yet? -Splash 01:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maine College Republicans has come up on VfD too, and that one has a decent article. Oklahoma College Republicans has recently been created as well. I'm a Democrat, but I dont see much reason to delete these articles. EvilPhoenix talk 05:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, far too localized. Vanity. Radiant_>|< 08:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many other political advocacy groups on wikipedia. -- Judson 23:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. Dragonfiend 03:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This local chapter of a notable national organization isn't encyclopedically notable on its own. Quale 18:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 20:36, 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. Woohookitty 06:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

جرمنی[edit]

It'a marked for translation... but the title isn't even in Egnlish. Schrei 04:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. If someone translates it, they can move it to the English title, too. It's been on WP:PNT since July 8; it should stay there for the full two weeks before being listed on vfd like anything else, unless someone can at least say what it's about. —Cryptic (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate English title if someone does translate it - the title is the main reason I listed it here but that might have been premature. Schrei 05:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I have a rudimentary understanding of Arabic and know a few words of Farsi... I suspected what Gunmetal discovered below but didn't understand enough to be sure. (And sorry about not fully understanding the merge/delete/move stuff yet - I'm new to this) Schrei 06:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't understand Arabic. I can't even read it. Could someone tell me what it's about? — JIP | Talk 06:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I nominated it for deletion - even if someone translates the article, the page still should be deleted as I doubt anyone will type that title into the English Wikipedia. Schrei 07:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, this was just copy-pasted from somewhere by a troll. dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article title appears to be "Germany" (which is a bit bizarre) ~~~~ 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio. A Google search on a random section of the article gets two Google hits on a German website. --Carnildo 20:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless. Gwk 21:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is Germany.. then its probably useles... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • copyvio This article title reads the word 'germanic' for some reason. --jonasaurus 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using an online Farsi translator, this appears to be basically a encyclopedic article on Germany... listing things like the distance from the northernmost point, to the southernmost... and other basic facts. Probably copyvio too. --Gunmetal 22:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant. siafu 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote. We need someone to check on the copyvio thing first. If it's copyvio, speedy delete; if its' found not to be copyvio, then put it up for translation.Almafeta 10:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether its a CP or not, it still appears to be on Germany or "Germanic"... More likely to be vanity than anything or just redundant information. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe report to Homeland Security! FunkyChicken! 05:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being. The article is in Farsi, and we have managed to get translations from Farsi in the past. It is listed on WP:PNT, and can come back if need be. For time being, it's listing on VfD is premature. Physchim62 16:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this on VfD? The comment at the top suggests strongly that the person who put it here could not read it, so it is not here based on a judgment that its content is unencyclopedic, or unnecessary duplications, or other typical reasons for deletion that would apply as well to English-language content, which are the only reasons that material should get less than 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Either handle as a copyvio, if that's what we think it is, or put this back on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English where it might get usefully handled. If it's not a copyvio and no one wants to translate it, it should be transwiki'd to the Farsi wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal that this article should not be deleted before 2005-07-22 19:43 (UTC), that is fourteen days after its listing on WP:PNT. Physchim62 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Physchim62's suggestion. -- Judson 23:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Copyvio. Almafeta 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe recreate in english or transfer to appropriate language wiki - Tεxτurε 20:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's 2005-07-22, at least by my timezone. Link 21:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it. It is duplication on English Wikipedia, and has been transwikied and taken care of on Farsi Wikipedia. Physchim62 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has been transwikied. No need to keep it here any longer. Sietse 10:14, 26 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. Some concerns were expressed about the name and content, and these should be addressed through the usual mechanisms. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate terrorism[edit]

Inherently POV. tregoweth 05:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • I added the VFD tag to the article, which was not done. No vote from me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to hit save in that window. Thanks! tregoweth 05:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite there have been instances of corporations enginging or promoting terrorist acts (cf Labor History). How ever the current article is just an anti-capitalist screed. Klonimus 05:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It's a valid topic, but it needs to be made NPOV. Gwk 05:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is presented that this phrase is in widespread usage. Gamaliel 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite As the author of the inital version I created this article also mentioning that this is just a rough sketch to expand upon. I just typed off without bothering about the NPOV. Please do rewrite this in any way as seen fit without any bias, either systemic or systamatic.
As far as Gamaliel's question, it is in fairly decent usage mainly by media. It was used when describing companies like Enron, Monsanto etc. that used their muscle power. Even KFC used the term, albeit it was misued by them. It is one example that corporates and media that reports mainly on corporates have and are using the term with increasing regularity.--Idleguy 06:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen the term quite a bit in mainstream media, but the article needs rewriting to achieve NPOV. Howee 06:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-write from the NPOV. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to corporate malfeasance. This phrase gets 50,100 hits to "corporate terrorism"'s 954, and honestly even putting that huge difference in common usage aside, just describes the situation much better. Our terrorism article here says "terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence"; as bad as closing down shops, lying about finances, etc. are, they're not terrorism or well-analogized to terrorism. Dcarrano 07:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't mind the move. But terrorism isn't just about violence or threat of violence. cyber-terrorism has todate not resulted in the deaths of any people yet is listed under the terrorism article. infact "corporate terrorism" has resulted in the suicides of people affected by such corporate threats to their lives or livelihood. Idleguy 17:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with Dcarrano. Move content to new corporate malfeasance, expand, and redirect corporate terrorism there. --Dave63 08:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Dcarrano. --Axon 11:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Dcarrano. --TheMidnighters 12:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Dcarrano. This devalues the term "terrorism". --Red King 14:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to corporate malfeasance in agreement with Dcarrano, but do not redirect this title to there; instead list it as a Requested Article. There have been cases of genuine corporate terrorism, some of which are sufficiently verifiable, but they're much rarer than corporate malfeasance and the two should not be confused. Barno 15:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to corporate malfeasance and cleanup. Also will need an NPOV-ing once there; it's disputable whether some of these examples could be described as malfeasance. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:20, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Move I agree with christopher parham. but take of POV first, then move to corporate malfeasance. --jonasaurus 21:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Redirect and Rewrite. siafu 23:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Dcarrano Merge with Corporate abuse. While corporate abuse is a very important and worthy topic for an article, it is silly to feel the need to identify everything bad that happens in the world under the label 'terrorism'. --Bletch 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite. Optionally rename, and mention the terrorism form in the introductory paragraph. And, please, expand. --Shaddack 01:33, 31 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maine College Republicans[edit]

Unnecessary. Seems to be a typical state branch of the College Republicans; nothing notable about it that makes it encyclopedic. tregoweth 05:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. See also California College Republicans. Gamaliel 05:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Politics-cruft. --Calton | Talk 06:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, most college clubs are not notable. Dcarrano 07:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 09:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dwain 20:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. --jonasaurus 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here stands out as notable, and it's just a local branch of a bigger thing. -Splash 01:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable group, although regional section of larger organization, has received national recognition nywalton 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a decent article, and worth keeping. I think it risks POV to delete articles about Republican organizations, and this one seems fairly good. (I'm NOT a Republican, btw). EvilPhoenix talk 05:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Radiant_>|< 08:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or condense and merge into College Republicans. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local chapter of notable national organization is not notable. 165.189.91.148 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Sorry, got logged out before my edit. This is Quale 18:36, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waist-shake[edit]

Dictionary definition, and one for a word that isn't even real. As can be seen by reading the relevant article on the linked site [8], it's a word that was invented by a few junior-high school students, as a direct translation of a Japanese phrase into English. No one, English-speaking or Japanese-speaking, says this. Kairos 05:54, 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. CDC (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrorists[edit]

Google Only one relevant result when combining "The terrorists" and wafty, the label, as a query. Probable vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator royblumy 06:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable group vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable group vanity --jonasaurus 21:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Link to label's website is broken, also. Google test is difficult to impossible-- absent further information, not notable. siafu 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 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. Woohookitty 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrius[edit]

Apparent hoax. Ambi 06:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax/fanfiction. Note it was written by User:Tyrius ! Morwen - Talk 11:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanityfiction, or something. Friday 14:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- an attempt to write science fiction, I think.--Bhadani 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I failed to understand the article.--Bhadani 16:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)(Note: Delete vote added above.--Bhadani 16:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete This article seems to be a summary of a non-notable story that the author wrote. And it wasn't even a good story. --jonasaurus 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Oliver Keenan 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Fanfiction. siafu 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the author with a query but the user is yet to respond, it seems Tyrius is actuall a planet or solar system or something in the Star Wars (expanded) universe, so I imagine it is the authors fiction, which I doubt has been published, but we'll see if/when the author responds. Of course, if it hasn't been published we can't verify it ... Seeaxid 03:36, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3done[edit]

Now this is advertising if I ever saw it. Even includes contact information. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It did include contact information. Delete advertisement. Postdlf 06:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatent advertisement. (Hey, I need something to do with my time; why not waste it? ;-) --Theaterfreak64 17:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a speedy if i ever saw one. --jonasaurus 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Let's be real here. jg325 *talk* 21:26, 26 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. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Gourley[edit]

Political vanity page of the president of a national student political association. Nice start to his career, but not enough for a biographical article. Calton | Talk 06:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC) [added missing phrase -- sorry! --Calton | Talk 11:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)]

  • Delete, leading a student club is normally not notable. Dcarrano 07:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gourley appears to be the chairman of a large nationwide political organization. That makes him a notable politician IMO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His organization is more notable than most student groups, more than many nationwide student groups, but its political-activism function does not make him a "notable politician". The article does make a bit of claim to independent notability at the end, crediting his leadership for increased influence by the group in 2004 USA elections, but I feel this overstates the case both for the group and for Mr. Gourley. If broader media recognition than the Reagan Award can be verified, then keep the article on the basis of that specific notability, not just because he spent time as head of a big student group. (I had to work hard to keep my POV out of this comment.) Barno 15:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student club leader. They'll be another one next year. This article overstates his accomplishments and reads like a vanity page. Gamaliel 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dwain 20:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete he overstates his accomplishment. weakly autobiographical. vanity. --jonasaurus 21:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he will be notable when he achieved something in mainstream politics. also vanity. Oliver Keenan 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge with College Republican National Committee. siafu 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete transitory accomplishment that is non-encyclopedic and non-notable. -Splash 01:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno, Gamaliel, and Splash. Quale 07:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Collage Repullican Nat'l Committee president is a notable article. Paul3144 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Paul Gourley leads an organization with 120 thousand members in 50 states on 1200+ college campuses, with a 17 million dollar budget in FY2004, which has directly contributed leaders to the Republican Party such as Karl Rove and sitting United States governors. A notable politician. Joseph_T_McCarthy 01:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mea you now believe it should be kept Gamaliel? Since it appears that you are the one who wrote, "First edit," from the history page. If your not changing your vote then what is the point of making that statement? Dwain 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It is common practise to make the life of the closing admin that little bit easier. See WP:VFD and WP:GVFD which says that votes from new users may be discounted and that it is sufficent to mark their edits as such (rather than call them sockpuppets etc). I see no implication that Gamaliel means to vote keep by this edit. -Splash 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would you think the words "first edit" meant I wanted to change my vote? Gamaliel 07:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very STRONG Keep This is ridiculous. This is the latest of a string of College Republican articles to be deleted. This national organizations IS notable and therefore its leadership and prominent state federations ARE notable. If the accomplishments of people like Mr. Gourley don't speak for themselves I am not sure what would. Why is this level of scrutiny being applied only to GOP groups? I don't see any push to remove the article on Scott Peterson or other trash articles like the one on Jennifer Wilbanks, which are definitely NOT encyclopediac. If anyone outside of the arrogant cybernerds with the audacity to label the College Republicans simply "a student group" saw the incredible influence they have on Republican politics as noted and the high-profile nature of the campaign to elect their leaders (i.e. Gourley's) nature of College Republicans do, they'd be as appalled as I am. Get some perspective and knowledge. nywalton 23:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC) vote actually by 66.30.36.200[reply]
  • Do you think insulting people is an effective way to change people's minds? Gamaliel 01:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir, the gentleman from NY has a point. That Mr. Gourley's article would even be considered for deletion considering the sheer size of the College Republican organization is evidence enough that certain individuals are trolling on wikipedia, throwing their weight around to try to knock off legitimate articles. Not only should the article be kept, but there shouldn't even need to be debate on this. Joseph_T_McCarthy 11:37, 23 July 2005
      • Or it is evidence that certain individuals have a difference of opinion about what constitutes a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. Gamaliel 04:08, 24 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dugas[edit]

Political vanity bio of a failed congressional candidate. Delete. Calton | Talk 06:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, plenty young enough to make it one day but running for the House and failing isn't enough yet. Dcarrano 07:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--major party nominees for national legislatures are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not paper. Meelar (talk) 14:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Meelar. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Kappa 14:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficiently notable. Just in the USA there are 435 losing "major party nominees for national legislature" every two years. Multiply a few hundred losing candidates by 150 or so countries with national legislatures, and we'll soon create PoliticalWannabeWiki. Wikipedia is not a forum for advancing oneself in a popularity contest. Barno 15:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: 468 or 469 such people every two years in the USA. Barno 00:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insignificant failed minor candidate. Reads like a vanity page. Gamaliel 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failed minor candidate. --Carnildo 20:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dwain 20:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete insignificant. was not a hotly contested race. he was a token candidate. as such, non notable and delete. --jonasaurus 21:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Oliver Keenan 21:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rewrite -- currently unsources/POV, e.g. unsourced statement: "Political analysts and State Party officals saw Dugas' 2004 run for Congress as a training zone for potential political ventures for the future." Was apparently mentioned on The Daily Show, however, in addition to being an endorsed GOP candidate, so notable. siafu 23:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_>|< 08:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a major party nom. for a nat'l legislature. Youngamerican 12:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno. If he continues in politics he may become notable in the future. Quale 07:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like Dr. Dugas student has an axe to grind in wanting to delete this entry. If you look a little closer...Notice the individual who first started this deletion thread is a student in the Sacramento area...the same region where Professor Dugas taught Stats classes. Wiki should be an enviroment that does not cave in to angry students. 03:09, 18 July 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.208.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep This man is actually a poliitcal figure among the new age of Republicans in California. I've seen him interviewed on Fox 40 News here during the election and I was impressed (even though I didn't care much for his politics). Also note that the name Mike Dugas appears in {"U.S. House election, 2004"]. He isnt really a forigen insertion into the wiki database. User:Hillary2008
  • User's ninth edit.
  • Keep. Major party candidate in a national congressional race is notable enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 27 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, now a redirect Dmcdevit·t 07:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Snigger[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't really see this article going anywhere-- BMIComp (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already redirected. Radiant_>|< 08:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gash[edit]

Supposedly, Gash is a slang term for vagina specifically used in the United Kingdom. I am no expert in UK slang, but the creator of the article has added similar claims to other articles and vandalized some more, so... Rl 07:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, it has that meaning... and Wiktionary has it. Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 07:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Friday 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is it dicdef, but it isn't even in wide use in the UK, since I have never heard it said. This could just be region-specific slang. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's popular in London, but even so, delete. Hiding 17:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Stuff the gash in the "deleted" bucket. I've heard the word used that way in the USA, but it's just a slang dicdef, with nothing encyclopedic to be said about it. Barno 15:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a very short-lived Channel 4 TV programme written & presented by Armando Ianucci of that name, but I doubt its notable enough for inclusion. Redirect to Wound instead? Qwghlm 17:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. Do not redirect anywhere (except maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary). Drop a line in whichever article lists sex slang. -- BD2412 talk 19:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable dicef. --jonasaurus 21:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable, or to use Barno's words "stuff the gash" Oliver Keenan 21:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or dab vagina/wound. I've heard the term used in speech for vagina (or woman, just like "cunt"), but not notable enough on its own. siafu 23:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redo Article I have heard uses of the word gash as female parts, however it is usually as far as I know, rarely used unless in a rhyming way (eg. "Flash of the Gash"), however, gash primaraly means a longe, large opening, most often an injury, so perhaps the article should be restructured to make this the primary meaning?
  • I nominated the article, but I haven't actually voted. May I suggest redirecting to Zatch Bell!? Looks like there is some character with that name. Rl 17:21, 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 no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Male rights[edit]

Essay on a topic covered in another article. Delete. Sethoeph 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, personal essay/original research. If one wants to criticize feminism, the article has a section for that. Redirect to men's rights, duplicate article (if we can call this an "article".) Dcarrano 07:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep IMHO the idea that this is only notable in the context of feminism is sexist. The article needs improvement as it says. CalJW 09:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV original essay. JamesBurns 10:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to men's rights, as per Dcarrano. No content here worth salvaging. Morwen - Talk 13:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Axon 12:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. — RJH 16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. --jonasaurus 21:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, these "merge as above" votes: who above you said merge? -Splash 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They assumedly mean merge to men's rights? At least that's what I would vote. Radiant_>|< 08:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, somebody could make a decent article out of this. Oliver Keenan 21:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. siafu 23:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak redirect, but do not merge since we'd be merging POV original research. In case of no redirect consensus, delete. -Splash 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research; then make a redirect from this title to Men's rights. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:00, 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:6k, 1d. -Splash 01:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Parasol[edit]

Founder of online gambling site of questionable notability. EvilPhoenix talk 08:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep She is a billionairess. PartyGaming's notability is beyond question. It is the dominant company in the world in its sector. It recently listed on the London Stock Exchange and has a market capitalisation in the region of $10 billion. It is almost certain to become a FTSE 100 company when the index is next revised in September. CalJW 09:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strange days indeed.... I updated the stub a bit -Harmil 14:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CalJW. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notable. Oliver Keenan 21:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable businessperson in both online gambling and originally porn see [9]. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Appears notable. JamesBurns 02:48, 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 move to evil laugh (already done) and delete the redirect. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha[edit]

This does not seem terribly noteworthy nor needed. EvilPhoenix talk 08:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Qualified delete. If feasible, pertinent info should be merged with laughter. knoodelhed 08:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete all of the information. Merging sounds like a good idea though. Maybe a redirect, or would that be innapropriate? Seeaxid 09:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You do have to make up your mind for the vote to count. Otherwise, it's just a comment like this one. -Harmil 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd count it as a keep re use of the delete button. Then neutral on merge or redirect. Kim Bruning 10:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is this not notable? It's a huge part of Western culture for villains to have stereotypically villianous laughter! Certainly more people are familiar with this subject than vast numbers of articles about science, histroy, fancruft, or railroads. It's at least as notable as Ho ho ho. However, The article might be renamed to something better.-LtNOWIS 10:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I change my vote to move per Morwen. Evil laugh is a better article name. We probably don't need each spelling as a redirect, but I don't think they'd hurt. Also, this article is only 7 hours old. It'll almost certainly grow with time.-LtNOWIS 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is Mwahahahaha different from Mwahahaha or Mwahaha? It is just someones laugh... there is nothing inherently notable about that. JamesBurns 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference between those two doesn't enter into it. Morwen's proposal is to have the article at evil laugh, and a redirect from this spelling. Uncle G 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Evil laugh (which I made a redirect to it - and has one oncoming link). Morwen - Talk 10:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Morwen on move. Chances of anyone hitting the exact spelling for the current article is slim, too. Grutness...wha? 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per knoodelhed ... wow, what's happening to me today? I'm turning into a mergist! -Harmil 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many ways to spell it, this is a bad name. I don't think this will ever be more than a dicdef. If there's useful information here, it could be merged into laughter. Friday 13:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to evil laugh or gloating laugh, or merge into laughter. There! My vote is cast! Mwahahahaha! -- Karada 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we want Mwahahaha, Mwahaha, Mwahahahahahaha and others all to redirect to evil laugh. Radiant_>|< 14:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that evil laugh is currently a redirect to this article, and not a full article in its own right. As I read your comment, you appear to to be happy for the article to be at evil laugh, albeit that you think that the redirects are not worthwhile. Is my inference correct? Uncle G 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — RJH 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 19:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant!. Dcarrano 19:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. especially for the likes of onomonopeias. --jonasaurus 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Oliver Keenan 21:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable for being part of Slashdot subculture if nothing else. But there are loads of ways to spell it. I prefer Bwahahah. Mwahahaha! Robinh 21:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to evil laugh or laughter. Btw, the correct spelling is "Muwahaha", because I said so. Hermione1980 23:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both wrong, it's "Muahaha". -- BD2412 talk 02:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Radiant! (and if someone could warn this user why this page got deleted, she's known for creating these kind of pages). --InShaneee 02:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure who you refer to, but the creator has four edits. [10] Radiant_>|< 08:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge or something, just get rid of it, it seems way too stupid to be an article in an encylopedia, so how about a rename instead --172.174.173.175 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morwen's idea is a good one. I've refactored the article to go along with the proposal. Move to evil laugh over the redirect. Delete or keep the redirect left behind according to taste. Uncle G 14:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with Radiant!'s note that the evil laugh expression (mwhahaha, etc) has many variations, as long as we mention some variation of it in the article readers should be able to find it through the search function, thus the proposal to delete the remains appeals to me. However I'm not so sure as to legitimacy of the title Evil laugh. Seeaxid 16:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to evil genius. Possibly together with "Fools! I'll destroy them all!" and the like. --Kizor ~
  • Keep or move somewhere.  Grue  18:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You either know what it means or you don't. You don't need an encylcopedia for it. -asx- 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if anything I'd spell it Mwahahaha, followed by Bwahahaha (for jubilant laughter), but I think everyone's different. Bad precedent. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • What about spelling it evil laugh, as proposed above? Uncle G 17:38:20, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry, that's what I meant, I meant to move it to evil laugh as proposed, but delete all the redirects, as they're silly. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and all the redirects. The article is amusing, but profoundly unenyclopedic (how is it "megalomaniacal"?). -Splash 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I WILL DELETE YOU MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA r3m0t talk 20:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC) :)
  • Move to Evil laugh and keep.-gadfium 23:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luke, I am your deleter... muhahahahahaaaaa... seriously though, the page name is shocking. As I just demonstrated, there is no "right" way to spell the opening or define the number of "ha"s, so we'd need hundreds of redirects, not to mention "NO! spell it this way!!!" page-move wars. Gah. GarrettTalk 02:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Move to evil laugh as (variously) above. GarrettTalk 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash. --Kbdank71 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Evil laugh, as per several people above. DES 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Evil laugh. (evil laugh) Alphax τεχ 01:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why do you need to delete it anyway?? Its not offencive, or is the servers running out of room? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.4.208 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-27 07:22:13 UTC
  • As the only one here qualified to judge an evil laugh, I rule Move to Evil laugh!!! Mwahahaha... --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:43, 27 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. Dmcdevit·t 23:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Removal from the Order of Canada[edit]

Should be merged with Order of Canada. EvilPhoenix talk 09:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merger does not involve deleting articles at any stage. If you want an article merged, merge it. Don't nominate it for deletion. If you want to warn people about an impending merger, use the tags that are there for the purpose, not {{subst:vfd}}. Uncle G 11:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Keep as expanded 23skidoo 12:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeYoungamerican 14:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Keep as expandedYoungamerican 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am in the middle of expanding the article, and I mainly created it as a fork, since I do not want to overload the main article with stuff about the removal process. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Order of Canada is already big enough. --Scimitar parley 16:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Removal from the Order of Canada. The article has been expanded since the nomination. This article, and the Order of Canada article are each long enough to stand on their own. Merging them would likely exceed the recommended length for Wikipedia articles. What is the solution for over-sized articles? Create a branch article! Keep. Ground Zero 18:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ground Zero. •Zhatt• 18:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after Ground Zero --Simon.Pole 19:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Order of Canada because of how closely related the subject matter is. If that article is too long, maybe it could be split up on different criteria, perhaps "Order of Canada membership" for eligibility, removal, and notable members. Peter Grey 19:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a page/list all of the Companions of the Order. Of course, there is a lot more Members and Officers than what we listed, but we could create pages for that (but with my luck, they will wind up on here like other stuff I put my hand on recently). As for the eligability, that can also be an article by itself too, since I finally located the Order Constitution (can that be created, then sent to Wikisource?) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the list, a new article on membership criteria etc. Peter Grey 21:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see what I can do. I need to expand this a bit more (mainly in the Ahenakew section) and see if there are other members of the Order who are facing calls for removal. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ground Zero. CJCurrie 20:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zscout and Ground Zero. Main article is much too large to merge into. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a very notable article and stands to be expanded greatly. to many people in canada, these events were as big news as the presidential impeachment was to americans. --jonasaurus 21:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Evilphoenix with Order of Canada. Besides, Jonasaurus should know that in 1868 the OoC didn't exist. brenneman(t)(c) 00:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been expanded and improved. EvilPhoenix talk 04:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • So, does this mean the VFD stops? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe so. Although it has consensus and the nominator votes keep, it has to "serve its time". In case a horde of maple-syrup-hating Wikipedians come and vote delete, as it were. And Nixon was never impeached. brenneman(t)(c) 04:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because he resigned before he could do it. But back to this vote, I still have one question: for those agreeing with Evilpheonix to redirect, what will happen with their votes since Evil, the nominator, voted keep? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, so far Keep is outvoting Merge pretty hardcore, so I'd say the article is pretty safe. As the argument has been made that Order of Canada is sizable enough as is, I imagine that the closing admin (who will decide the vote) will agree that the consensus is for keep. Good work on the article, btw. EvilPhoenix talk 05:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 08:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Information on the individual to the individual's article page on the circumstance of the removal from the Order of Canada. Keep the Order of Canada page clean with just a reference to individuals removed and if necessary a separate article on the process for removal from the Order of Canada. To enter information regarding the circumstance of the removals will not do justice to this prestigious Order. Receiving the Order of Canada is great and wonderful thing; it's the individual that should bear the burden of humiliation. IMHO HJKeats 04:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the article is about: the process for removal, the two folks who were removed and one person who is facing calls for removal. Of course, we have a reference to Eagleson and Ahenakew in the main OoC article, but I wanted to branch out this aticle, since the removal of a person from the Order is rare and a lot of what happens when someone is removed was discussed recently due to Ahenakew's removal. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to thank Zscout370 for his effort and dillegence on this article. Just to clarify my position, I just wanted to suggest that the controversy for the removal of individuals to not tarnish the Order because of their actions. The Removal from the Order of Canada article is fine and should stay, Keep. The merge I suggested was to merge information into the individuals article, which I belive is already in progress. HJKeats 00:51, July 25, 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 unanimously apart from nominator, with Dcarrano taken as keep. -Splash 01:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic pornography[edit]

Far Left bias, Google results yeild irrelevant returns, not a real genre of pornography. I vote to delete.TheDoober 09:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, Black Tail, Asian Fever, Asian Babes, Big Black Meat 6, Bombay Bitches, Black Dicks in White Chicks, Cock Craving Chicas, Latina Cochina, Black GangBangers #11 and Bang My White Ass (to name some of the less offensive titles) are fevered dreams of the far-left imagination? Google for "interracial dvd", and Google gives you an estimated 818,000 hits. I could go on, but Wikipedia is not a porn search engine. Indeed, many (most?) of the DVD sales sites have explicit "Asian", "Latina" and "Interracial" categories provided for genre enthusiasts' convenience. See also my computation on the talk page that roughly 6% of "adult films" have ethnic terms in their titles. Google gives 289 hits for the exact phrase "ethnic pornography". For just one of them, see the New York Press article The Chosen Peephole: Jews can do porn just as badly as everyone else., which mentions the even more unsettling subject of Holocaust pornography that depicts Jews as Nazi victims. Keep -- Karada 09:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not, it is a genre of porn. Redwolf24 09:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm amazed how many people get turned on by Asian women, or by black men. It's certainly a notable enough phenomenon. — JIP | Talk 09:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep far-left bias? pardon? :D jamesgibbon 12:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete. Youngamerican 14:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in agreement with Karada. The term isn't heavily used but it's the best general term to reference the real and pervasive phenomenon. Most non-niche pornsites have categories such as "Asian", and many niche sites are based on ethnicity. Barno 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the vast majority of these films depict interracial relationships? If so, rename to interracial pornography; if that name would be a misnomer, then keep, although it feels like a neologism. Dcarrano 19:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Karada. --PrologFan | Talk 20:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't find a reason for deletion aside from the redundant syntax. --jonasaurus 21:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "ethnic" != "non-caucasian". siafu 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Caucasians are just another ethnic group, and are fetishized as exotic by, for example, the Japanese. "White" is not a default setting. -- The Anome 17:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I disagree with a rename to interracial pornography, which should have its own article. Pornography focused on members of a particular ethnic group is just as likely to be presented as solo pictorials. -- BD2412 talk 02:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (all together now with a quick chorus of Monty Python's "I like Chinese"...) Grutness...wha? 04:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "Jews are frequently depicted as large-breasted" comment struck me as funny since my experience is that they have a very nice range of sizes as I have learned from personal, um research. -- FunkyChicken! 06:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone who claims that they have failed to turn up evidence of this as a real phenomenon has been unacceptably lazy in their so-called "research". Abstain for now on the best title for the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable genre of pornography. However it should be edited to be made less POV. -- Crevaner 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand what is inappropriate with this article. -- Behemoth
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Nearly half of the delete votes had to be discarded because their editors looked too new to Wikipedia (my rule is one month and at least 100 edits). This left four deletes against a rag-tag of conflicting merges. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab hacker[edit]

This is an article about a hacking ring that is supposedly on a cyber-jihad against U.S. websites. Sounds like nothing but a plug for someone's cybergroup. The FBI is mentioned and a link with an article on hacking includes a passing mention of this group, but this doesn't constitute notability and isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page. Harro5 10:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Timeline of hacker history -Harmil 13:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with cyber-terrorism. Dcarrano 19:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with script kiddie. :P --Jack (Cuervo) 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Binadot 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not notable. IINAG 18:34, 23rd July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, slam about spelling seems POV (particularly since 'apparent' is apparently typo'ed by the apparent author). ;-) Xaa 00:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete glorification of crime -asx- 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, possible insult page, just not encyclopedic. Sorry guys!DavidH 22:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flood fill example in C[edit]

C examples are not encyclopedic Cate 11:20, 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, (at the moment, cannot transwiki as the copyright is unclear). Dmcdevit·t 07:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

A_Small_Incident[edit]

This is just a transcribe of a chinese writing. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as it is. If someone knows somewhere to put it, I suggest it should be moved there and redirected. Otherwise, I call for deletion. Lucio @ 11:42 (UTC) 14 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 keep. – Rich Farmbrough 14:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hornby high school[edit]

Nonnotable high school and dead-end page. Linuxbeak 22:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This page doesn't have any useful information on it. The information could instead be added to Christchurch under a new heading titled "Schools" or something of the sort. It definitely doesn't need a page on its own. Mystique 04:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D: no encyclopaedic content. Joe D (t) 00:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonnotable. Sensation002 23:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC) see below[reply]
    • i would like to change my vote, i say clean up and keep.Sensation002 02:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate was apparently never listed on the VFD page. I will therefore (re?)submit it. No vote is always the safest on a hot topic like high schools... Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; substub, no evidence of notability. Dunc|☺ 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How it was decided that schools are automatically notable, I have no idea. Friday 14:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of schools in New Zealand. High schools are certainly more notable than most bus stops or train stations, but I don't see any of those up for VfD. Why is that? :) — RJH 16:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mystique. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 16:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are kept because they are clearly more significant than much of the pop culture material on Wikipedia. CalJW 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. One sentence substub. Gamaliel 16:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is absolutely worthless at present. --Scimitar parley 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I do regard high schools as encyclopedic, but this is so short I make an exception. PatGallacher 17:29, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
    • As this has now been expanded into a reasonable article I change my vote to keep. PatGallacher 22:50, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the original writer didn't care enough to even attempt to indicate why it is notable or interesting, then there's not much potential for expansion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the school website [11] wasn't down, I'd expand this myself. Although I must admit I'm getting tired of people bringing articles here just because they need to be expanded. -- Visviva 18:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but please expand even tho this is not a cleanup page Yuckfoo 18:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • High schools should assert some claim to notability beyond mere existence. Not every school has to be Eton, of course, but it should have to have significant notability beyond teaching and graduating students, having a couple of successful alumni (although having a very large number would be notable), etc. Does this HS have that? Delete unless such evidence is given. Dcarrano 20:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good school stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks better now. JYolkowski // talk 20:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May have been poor before; now is a good start on a school article. Unfocused 20:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No more notable than any other box with students in it. --Carnildo 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --jonasaurus 21:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. siafu 23:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bicycle. —RaD Man (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the bicycle but keep the school. Radiant_>|< 08:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete most schools as non-notable. And yes, I know about the previous discussions, but I still don't think this one needs an article. -Splash 01:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep since it has glasshouses and extensive gardens which I find to be unique and maybe encylopedic. Vegaswikian 07:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if the vote is to keep, the article needs to be moved to a new name and a DAB created at Hornby High School since the article itself lists another school with the same name. Vegaswikian 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Maver1ck 08:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schoolcruft Proto t c 14:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 14:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and I'm not just saying that because my ex is an ex-HHS student!) Real school, which should be notable enough. I've added a tiny bit more to it. Should nebe at Hornby High School (New Zealand), though. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schoolcruft. --Idont Havaname 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dunc|☺ 21:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er... Duncharris? You have already voted on this one (near the top see?). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 25 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!) 10:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Benefits Of Aloe Vera[edit]

Unencyclopedic content, and terribly POV. Delete Dr Gangrene 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very POV, poorly written, and any factual information that may be hidden here is already available at Aloe Vera. Decapod73 13:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by Decapod73. Unencyclopedic topic because topic itself is not NPOV, so do not leave as redirect. No useful content to merge anywhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Elf | Talk 17:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic as statements are not supported by empyrical evidence. --jonasaurus 21:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic/pointless. --Etacar11 00:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless and it doesn't even mention that Aloe Vera is good for treatment of minor burns! FunkyChicken! 06:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I spent five minutes to copyedit the article and restate its claims that aloe is effective for certain things with claims that aloe is used to treat those things. What is left is a single sentence which I think would be completely unobjectionable if merged into the aloe article. Wouldn't it have been easier to do this in the first place rather than going through VfD? — Pekinensis 23:28, 26 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. Woohookitty 16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigovernment[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Sad, in a way, as a "wikigovernment" couldn't possibly be worse than some forms of government that have actually been tried. Ken 13:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nice idea though, would go great on a personal homepage. Unfortunately, there's nothing that makes it look encyclopedic. Friday 14:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - interesting and a nice idea, but its original research. Thryduulf 17:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a real-life example shows up. (Wasn't Marxism supposed to lead to an all-volunteer government?) Peter Grey 19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice idea though --jonasaurus 21:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not a democracy :) Radiant_>|< 08:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, pending further information. Are we certain that this article is a joke? I find it entirely plausible that a movement like this actually exists somewhere in significant numbers. --Dfranke
    • A Google test shows a grand total of 12 hits in web pages, and no hits in groups, for the term Wikigovernment. While not always conclusive (I do recognize the Google bias concept) in this case I think it's a good indicator. Ken 14:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - joke - Tεxτurε 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd vote if I could stop laughing... Almafeta 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for several reasons:
  1. Even if this is a joke it's a very good one and is a great Easter Egg in Wikipedia.
  2. If tweaked/expanded a bit it could look like a professional article.
  3. Let's consider it serious for a second. In the Information Age this not that far from possible as one might think.

Misza13 12:41:30, 2005-07-25 (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 deleted as copyvio. Dmcdevit·t 07:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Gore Browne[edit]

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 162.83.241.167 last night, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but most, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ken 13:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep this one is a Victoria Cross recipient and probably notable. Others just appear to be related to famous people. It appears that peers are considered inherently notable just for having a peerage, so those would stay. However, these all need cleanup. Morwen - Talk 13:35, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Nigel Matthew Seely[edit]

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 162.83.241.167 last night, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but most, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ken 13:26, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nigel Richard William Seely[edit]

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 162.83.241.167 last night, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but most, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ken 13:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no claim of notability, although is possible that they did notable stuff in war. Morwen - Talk 13:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The format of this and all the other pages is of Burke's Peerage or Debrett's ilk. Probably all copyvios. Delete anyway. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Morwen. Let's make sure we vote on the Seelys one by one, rather than as a group. Some are notable, some aren't. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 14:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:24, 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 Keep --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Seely MP, DL[edit]

This article, and everything else created by anonymous user 63.117.78.2 last night, seem to be genealogical information on the Seely family, and probably copied from some database. Some individuals may be encyclopedic, but many, I'm sure, are just like this one. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Ken 13:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having seen the error of my ways, I think this article should be kept and cleaned up, not deleted. Ken 19:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Could someone add the other titles of articles created by anonymous user 63.117.78.2, to make cleaning things up easier for whatever admin comes along and closes the VfD? jglc | t | c 13:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through the contributions for this and the other IP this user was using last night and added all non-notable individuals to VfD. There were fewer than I expected, as most are peers. Ken 13:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • The others should go, but this man, as is pointed out below, was an MP. Keep. jglc | t | c 14:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs cleanup, obviously, but former members of parliament seem eminently encyclopedic to me. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 13:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but MP 1847-48 and 1861-85? I would agree that a simple list of MPs might be useful, but there's nothing notable about most of them, just as there's really nothing notable about most members of Congress. Ken 13:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've taken the liberty of redirecting this one to Charles Seely, since it that the exact same content, and that had the correct name. Going to merge the VFD thingies now. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup--all members of Parliament, like all members of U.S. Congress and all other national legislatures, are encyclopedic. I normally don't use this, but Wikipedia is not paper. Meelar (talk) 14:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Charles Seely was one of the longest serving Members of Parliament in the 19th Century. He was a well-known philanthropist and land owner in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Wight. He hosted Guiseppe Garibaldi on his visit to London and Isle of Wight which is covered extensively by the London Illustrated News and other notable journals of the time. Members of Parliament in the [United Kingdom]] during the 19th Century were influential given United Kingdom dominance in world affairs at the time, Industrial Revolution etc.
  • Speedy keep and wikify. All MPs are notable. David | Talk 14:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see: See UK National Archives for family estates [[12]]-note Barons Sherwood refers to great grandson of Charles Seely herein and Seely family is common to all associated Seely family entries and Isle of Wight record office for Seely family estates [[13]]. All Seely family MP entries can be verified.
  • Keep a cleaned up article on this MP, but I do suspect the original contributor was merely cutting and pasting from another website. Average Earthman 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with most of the information from Cseely's comment above. (Delete all the Seelys who weren't Members of Parliament.) Barno 16:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't be serious about nominating a member of Parliament. CalJW 16:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. MP=notable. But needs to rectify the current copyvio problem first. 23skidoo 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and I note copyright violations. This is my family member listed. Are you suggesting that i re-write the entry? I cannot believe that i dont have a right to my family's biographical data. i know most of it by heart!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.78.21 (talk • contribs) 9:32, 14 July 2005

  • Note: You have a right to your family's biographical data. Wikipedia does not have a right to the copyrighted contents of a published reference work without proper citation of that work. If you truly have your entire family's genealogy memorised, it should be but the work of a few scant minutes to re-create it. jglc | t | c 19:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will rewrite later and post.

thankyou--do you suggest i re-write the entries or site the reference work?

  • Personally I would rewrite of all the articles, rather than a citation added to them. The general test applied for a fair use claim is the percentage of the work that's copied, versus the percentage that isn't. Adding a citation leaves the copied material intact, and obviously copied. Rewriting it will change the format, even if the data is the same as presented in your source (which you should still cite). It may also let you add some biographical detail that's not present in your source, which would further differentiate your article from the source. You might want to create a custom template, since there are a lot of Seelys, it seems. :-) Ken 20:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have re-written all of the entries. How long do i have to wait for approval? Several of them are marked for copyright infringment, which i no longer believe is the case, since i have written them mostly from memory.

  • Per the copyright violation notice, if you've rewritten the articles and placed the rewritten versions in the correct location (temp pages under the main article) they'll replace the notice when it's cleaned up. There's a seven day waiting period for this. In the mean time, continue to maintain the articles in their current location; if you need to link to one, I think you would link to the main article.Ken 21:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's a copyvio. JamesBurns 03:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite the copyvio, but we should have an article on all MPs. James F. (talk) 15:47, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language track[edit]

Delete dicdef at best. Actual, encylopedic information could easily go into DVD instead if needed. Friday 13:49, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movota[edit]

Found nothing on google about it, seems suspiciously like nonsense. Manik Raina 13:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete too short, no context, looks like nonsense, no evidence that any such religion exists. Friday 14:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I already had this speedy'd. Offending anonymous IP user re-created article after it was destroyed. jglc | t | c 14:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a short article with no context. --Carnildo 20:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Patent nonsense. siafu 23:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very speediable. I will try again. Denni☯ 02:45, 2005 July 15 (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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Summers[edit]

Subject of the page seems to be unremarkable Manik Raina 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanitycruft. Friday 14:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is great stuff. It has potential.

Unsigned comment by User:202.6.138.33.--Scimitar parley 16:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is amazing. It should win the nobel prize for liturature. (Unsigned comment by 202.6.138.34 (talk · contribs))

This is a very important article for the wikipedia community. Keep it. (Unsigned comment by 202.6.138.33 (talk · contribs))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clash in the Class[edit]

Delete: I can find nothing that confirms this event ever took place. I can find nothing that even confirms the existence of the school where this supposedly happened. Further, the article implies that Siad Barre died prior to this event; he died in 1995, not 1991. He was deposed in 1991. I suspect this article is simply a hoax. --Durin 14:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If there's real content, it could be in better chosen article like History of Somalia. But it's probably a hoax. Friday 14:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax and based upon some sort of short story the author wrote. see google. --jonasaurus 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 01:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETEBy voting for the deletion of this article you are insulting the lives of those who were killed that day. Some dates might be wrong but general story is probably correct.unsigned edit by 80.11.56.223 (talk · contribs)
  • KeepThe author says little known and as the history of Somalia is not exactly a topic many historians focus on it could be legitimate. Furthermore it could be one of many theories associated with the Somali Civil War's beginnings.unsigned edit by 80.11.56.223 (talk · contribs)
  • Seeing as you are most likely the originating author, perhaps you could cite some references by which we could verify the contents of this article? As noted above, I could find nothing confirming the event or even the existence of the school. According to Wikipedia:Five pillars, "Verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for entry into Wikipedia.". Provide something by which we can verify this, or the article is most likely going to be deleted. --Durin 20:07, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Daniel Lieber[edit]

  • Delete NN Probable vanity A curate's egg 14:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like vanity --Irishpunktom\talk 14:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. but an effort should be made to invite him into the wikipedia fold. --jonasaurus 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:29, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Llewellyn[edit]

Delete: Vanity. --Durin 15:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity, hoax, who knows? He may well be a "prioneer", but nothing here establishes him as noteworthy. Friday
  • Delete standard vanity. --TheMidnighters 18:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity as per above --jonasaurus 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 03:29, 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. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Bruner on Cognitive Development[edit]

Delete. Bad title, bad structure, looks more like an essay, and it seems to be POV. I think it might also qualify as original research. Toothpaste 15:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this page has been on cleanup since October. It reads more like original research or a Jerome Bruner fanpage than an encyclopedia article, and I'm not sure what could be done to it to improve it. --Ardonik.talk()* 15:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Friday 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything rescuable into Jerome Bruner. It's not original research, since it's presumably all from secondary sources, but it does look like a school essay. The author should be encouraged to contribute to the existing article on Bruner. — mendel ☎ 16:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV and original research. --jonasaurus 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and merge salveable bits). Essay. David.Monniaux 22:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is rescuable into Jerome Bruner, then redirect or kill this title. Possibly redirect, to discourage recreation - David Gerard 22:28, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 21:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual_center[edit]

This article is mainly a long, highly subjective list of cities that the creator of the article thought were intellectual centers. There are no clear criteria for inclusion on the list, and it's highly biased toward the modern U.S. (e.g., both Cambridge, MA and Boston, MA are listed, and both Berkeley and San Francisco). I think it should be deleted. Bcrowell 15:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but modify--I agree that there should be some criteria. For example, list could become a table with Place, When, Why. I think that the concept "intellectual center" is worthy of an article, and there are several pages that show up in What links here. Elf | Talk 16:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are several pages that link there, but I think they were all links put in by the anon who created the article. The reason I came across the article in the first place was that the anon added a link from Freethought, which wasn't even appropriate, IMO. I also don't think it's realistic to hope for the article to be improved. If you look at the edit history for Intellectual center, it was created today by an anon, and since then, the only edits have been by me and User:Zeimusu, both of us pointing out that there were problems with the concept. I don't see any evidence that there are people who are willing to improve it, and I also disagree that the concept is worth salvaging. I don't see how adding "why" information would help, since there are no agreed-upon, objective criteria for deciding what qualifies for the list.--Bcrowell 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should also explain that after I noticed the bogus link from Freethought, I also went through and deleted some of the more spammish links to Intellectual center, from the following articles: History of the World, List of academic disciplines, Utopia.--Bcrowell 17:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--this isn't a widely used or recognized term. Meelar (talk) 18:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dicdef plus subjective list. Subject might have an article written about it, but not this. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I like the concept, but it's far too vague. The small number of places keeping intellectual heritage alive through the Middle Ages represent something very different from 'arts district'. Peter Grey 19:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Dcarrano 20:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, highly-subjective list. --Carnildo 20:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjective list. Martg76 21:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list is highly subjective and non encyclopedia as such. --jonasaurus 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete -- I agree. By the way, this vote came to my attention because I noticed in Recent Changes that the article's author stripped the Vfd tag from the article. --Mysidia 02:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The description of the list is all-inclusive, and the criteria seem too subjective and not well known (it smells of original research). I would dispute that Berkeley, California or Atlantis are intellectual centers, Athens, Greece seems more reasonable to describe that way. The criteria are so weak and therefore the quality of the list that just about any notable university, school, library, forum, or meeting place that ever existed in the world is an intellectual center. I say those should go into separate, independent lists. --Mysidia 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, but needs clear criteria. It could be a very informative list, if we established useful criteria. I can't think of anything like this we've got, and it could be a very useful source of information if done well. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! -- why would anyone want to delete this list? I agree that it does need MUCH WORK, but if you all delete this you page are crazy. This is what Wikipedia is all about -- pounding out a compromise instead of getting all delete happy. As for the bias someone mentioned, that's not true because in the US there are quite a few MAJOR intellectual centres so it makes sense that they should be on the list. << since there are no agreed-upon, objective criteria for deciding what qualifies for the list. >> Uhhh, read the heading and that tells you the criteria -- it must be or have been an intellectual centre sometime in the course of history. That's not a muddled criteria at all! --Berlin Stark 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Invalid vote) keep -- You said << I don't see any evidence that there are people who are willing to improve it, ... >> Well, I just did. Do you by any chance realize that this article has only been alive for ONE DAY, and when you said this moronic statement it was on the SAME DAY THAT IT WAS MADE! DUH! No one on Wikipedia has even had a chance to read it much less improve upon it and you already want to delete it...quite fascist if you ask me. -- 205.188.116.7 08:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Based on similarity of IP addresses, this appears to be a vote by the person who created the article.--Bcrowell 14:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Invalid vote) keep This will be a good article once it is worked on a bit. -- 64.12.116.7 12:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently POV - Tεxτurε 20:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give this article a little bit of time and it will work. --Buddyzine 07:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the vfd tag, which you replaced with a cleanup tag. Vfd tags can't be deleted while the vfd is in progress. This is the third time the vfd tag has been deleted since the vfd began.--Bcrowell 15:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Buddyzine account was created July 29, and has only a single edit to any article, which is the one being voted on here.--Bcrowell 19:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP...this will be an interesting list once it is polished up. --Catgirl333 03:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Catgirl333 account was created July 29, and has only a single edit to any article, which is the one being voted on here.--Bcrowell 19:38, 30 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!) 12:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Fret[edit]

Google results Using query "fourth fret" no relevant results appeared in first 20 pages. Combine that query with the hometown and only 1 forum result appears. Doesn't meet music guidelines.

lots of issues | leave me a message 15:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing to establish notability here. Friday 16:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 01:09, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thryduulf 16:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji Reference:Seki[edit]

Useless, and would belong in Wiktionary anyway Wereon 15:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete nonsense. Friday 16:18, 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. Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hardy (bassist)[edit]

The page Robert Hardy (bassist) appears to be a vanity page and should be deleted.

  • No it isn't. Speedy keep. FF are a world-famous band. Morwen - Talk 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Morwen. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FF is a well-known band. Ken 16:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't look like vanity. Multiple editors, and the band appears legit, even though they're not known in my corner of the world. Friday 16:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Franz Ferdinand (band). FF is very notable, but Hardy isn't notable outside of the context of the band (or at least the article doesn't make that clear). All of the information in the article relates to the band's formation and rightly belongs there. If Hardy is notable for being something other than the bassist of a hit band, or if someone writes a long, verified, and interesting bio of this guy, then I can see it as its own article. Otherwise, it's a misplaced story with a goofy picture. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article and that stupid picture. Nothing here that can't be covered in the FF article. Gamaliel 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a sentence or two in the FF article as per Gamaliel. Thryduulf 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Morwen. Qwghlm 17:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Morwen but ditch the picture which makes it difficult to take this article seriously. 23skidoo 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into band's article as per Android. No indication that Mr. Hardy has any notability outside of that of the band. Barno 18:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Franz Ferdinand (band) per Android79. Dcarrano 20:08, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Morwen. Photograph eightysixed. Hall Monitor 21:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article as per above. --jonasaurus 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in his own right for his contributions to a guitar-based band. David | Talk 22:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with band article. Nothing notable about him on his own. --Etacar11 01:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 08:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this and the articles on the other members (Alexander Kapranos / Nicholas McCarthy / Paul Thomson) into a Members of Franz Ferdinand (band) article. Thinking being if we merge this article it would imply that we need to merge the others and that would make Franz Ferdinand (band) article too long... -- Lochaber 14:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Franz Ferdinand (band). Not notable on his own. JamesBurns 03:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was not produced for vain purposes. Notable, award-winning band with strong individual contributions. --Bleary 02:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    First edit. Gamaliel 03:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge. James F. (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.91.73 (talk • contribs)
  • First edit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newlearningsociety[edit]

Non-notable discussion society. -- RHaworth 16:00, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

  • Delete - No attempt to establish notability. --TheMidnighters 18:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability established. Friday 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and advertisement. see wikipedia is not. --jonasaurus 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for a non notable forum. JamesBurns 03:33, 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Driver Dave[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable band. "bad driver dave" gets 32 displayed hits, Baddriverdave gets 118. No allmusic listing. Most hits are sites where anyone can enter content to promote themselves. This one describes themselves as a very local band with one MP3 available. Niteowlneils 16:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable.--GrandCru 17:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. --TheMidnighters 18:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I've got a band too, but you don't see it here. Friday 20:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    How many hits does it get on Google (I ask out of interst; I don't take Google to be the sole arbiter of importance). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --jonasaurus 21:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It describes the band as defunct, and as having four albums. The defunct part would go some way to explaining the paucity of Google hits. The albums part looks dubious, though they've appeared on compilation albums, and had at least an EP. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication in article to establish notability per [14]. siafu 00:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:34, 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.
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 Deleted as adspam. GarrettTalk 14:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Car accident secrets[edit]

Delete. Commercial for book for sale. A link to the external site has been repeatedly added by anon user(s) to car accident (see history) and repeatedly deleted by wikipedians for being commercial; this is apparently their new tactic. (Interestingly, Car Accident Secrets already deleted Jul 6 for copyvio even though user who created it holds copyright and said so and gave permission[15] (for his own work to be posted)). Elf | Talk 16:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The book does not have a particular author. It was written by a group. User:Bobdavis4 no more has the right to release the material that was posted on the original Car Accident Secrets page than any other user on Wikipedia. --Durin 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisment. Thryduulf 16:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable advertisement. Gblaz 19:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. --Calair 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk 02:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. L-Bit 08:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertisement. --Durin 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam! -- FunkyChicken! 05:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 Delete by Denelson83 as recreation of previously deleted content. --GraemeL (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Car accident secrets[edit]

Previously deleted adspam, recreated post deletion The page is back. As far as I can tell it's the same content previously discussed, a non-notable self-published book with links to spin-off merchandise. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete to make a point, and a personal warning to the user. The Minister of War 09:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as previously deleted content (if it's similar) and protect against recreation. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wordforge[edit]

This is a spinoff board created by disgruntled members of TrekBBS, which provides its only inbound link. It really doesn't feel notable enough. It is the top link in google, but I'm not certain how many of the other links actually relate to this site. It doesn't have an Alexa ranking.

I also note from the page history that Weyes considered nominating this for deletion earlier, but didn't apparently do so. Thryduulf 16:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn forumcruft. Friday 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable web site. Dcarrano 20:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time I created the entry the site had a reasonably high Alexa ranking. Two of the page 1 google results (based on a query run a couple of minutes ago) relate to the site. Malfourmed 10:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wordforge kicks butt and takes names and all you who want to delete it can kiss my Rebel dick! Save WordForge! It's small but it's growing. At the very least fold it into TrekBBS's screen. They may have more "members" but that doesn't make them at all more important.

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

Second Deletion[edit]

Hey! If you're going to delete it AGAIN, at least have a discussion first! Now I have to write it all again! Borgs8472 07:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DIY Soundsystem[edit]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for notability, no allmusic page. See Circus Warp for a related article currently in vfd. Icelight 17:23, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Birch (footballer)[edit]

Not sufficiently notable, possible vanity article. This person is a 14-year old football (soccer) player, who has just played for a few obscure schoolboy teams. Delete PatGallacher 17:41, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well-written vanity, but still vanity.--Scimitar parley 18:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Dcarrano 20:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. --Durin 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should we lump Pannal Sports Panthers in with this VfD? On initially seeing these articles, I was going to put them up for VfD. However, my not being a resident of the country in question left me in doubt as to how notable this sort of thing was. Given coverage by the BBC [16], I held back. I still think they should both be VfD'd though. --Durin 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did very seriously consider this myself. However, looking into this, the club does have some mention on BBC sports pages. Also, loooking at e.g. the Category Scottish football clubs, a fairly large number of British junior football teams already have entries, we could end up doing a hatchet job. I suppose as Wikipedia is not paper we could set the threshhold fairly low in this case. Nevertheless there are limits, this person should still be deleted. PatGallacher 23:12, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. but good wiki-writer. an effort should be made to bring this individual into the fold. --jonasaurus 21:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Okay, now that I have more information this guy does look non-notable. (On a side note, if the writing style people seem to like has anything to do with my editing, I'm flattered.) --Alynna 04:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im dan birch. i am sorry if i put myself in this. i just felt like it, i want my team to get coverage. sorry if i made a mistake. if u want ill delete it.

  • Don't worry, Wikipedia can be a bruising place at times. I probably did some silly things myself when I was 14. I've seen some adults do stupider things than this on Wikipedia. I don't think you can delete the article yourself, but if you accept that it should be deleted we can treat it as a speedy delete. I'm not sure if an article on your football team would be OK, but if you write a reasonable article on the league they play in, or your school, or the town where you live that would probably be OK, although I'm afraid I can't promise anything. PatGallacher 10:36, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

Im not sure. i just want to say that i reckon we footballers shld be able to write profiles Dan Birch

By the way, my article was not a breacg of vandalism, it is perfectly realistic and dont listen to the other boys. delete theirs! they are commiting breach of conduct. Dan Birch 14:54 (at School!)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Morton[edit]

Delete Non-notable. The organization may rate it's own page, and individual in it does not, and the page establishes no other notability. Icelight 18:00, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and his little dog, I mean student association, too! Friday 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, leaders of student clubs (if this even is one; what does "prominent" mean?) are not notable. Dcarrano 20:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • what does "prominent" mean? Part of him sticks out? --Calton | Talk 03:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN student club. --Calton | Talk 03:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:37, 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 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Waldron[edit]

Hoax. "Mary Waldron" + Iditarod gets no google hits, and the list of Iditarod winners doesn't include her. Delete Scimitar parley 18:07, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sahoma lanes bowling center[edit]

Is this a notable bowling alley? Are there notable bowling alleys? Shoaler 18:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Gamaliel 18:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wouldn't rule out the existence of notable bowling alleys (perhaps the one with the stinkiest rental shoes?), though it seems unlikely. I don't see any evidence that this one is notable, however. CDC (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. --TheMidnighters 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this bowling alley is notable. Decapod73 18:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn Gblaz 19:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least as notable as the average elementary school. --Carnildo 20:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --jonasaurus 21:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sapulpa is an old Route 66 town, but is this part of 66 lore? Doesn't seem like it. - Lucky 6.9 04:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just Googled this. Sahoma Lanes does have its own site...which only serves to reinforce its lack of notability. - Lucky 6.9 04:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable local business. Dcarrano 23:53, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo Between the Lines[edit]

Supposed Scooby Doo movie that allegedly came out this year, but no google hits. Nominated inappropriately for speedy, and wouldn't even fall under the expanded criteria (it's not about a person, is written coherently, and if true would clearly be notable). Nevertheless, it is a hoax, so delete. Meelar (talk) 18:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Seems false. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --NormalAsylum (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a hoax. – Seancdaug 19:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Jaxl 20:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. vandal. --jonasaurus 21:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax by a possible vandal. For the record, I'm very concerned about the amount of first-time vandalism coming in from first-time users, including vandal bot types of entries. - Lucky 6.9 04:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldnt the solution be to simply block anonymous users from contributing unless they actually registered first? JamesBurns 03:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 03:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. tregoweth 22:22, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Industrial TELEVISION[edit]

A community television show. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, or else a hoax. Gwk 20:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page appears to be incorrectly linked from VfD page. Dcarrano 20:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, plus public access TV shows are generally not notable. Dcarrano 20:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)*Delete advertisement. --jonasaurus 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for a non notable show. JamesBurns 03:42, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chelsy Davy[edit]

I don't really see where she's noteworthy enough to have her own page. The mention on Prince Harry's page should be sufficient. PacknCanes 18:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC) Delete As above --PhilipO 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per PacknCanes. Dcarrano 20:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete till he makes an honest woman of her. -EDM 21:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. big news in british tabloids though, and should be in harry's article. --jonasaurus 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Prince Harry of Wales. JamesBurns 03:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable.  Grue  18:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either take this article out or improve it with more than just "She likes the prince hehehe" TommyP 18:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps enhance accuracy of article - she is from Zimbabwe - not South Africa

  • Keep and Expand. The fact that the relationship is possibly still ongoing merits notability. --Madchester 23:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants movies[edit]

An annonymous IP has been creating articles for movies that are likely hoaxes. The only Google hits are for those articles.

Pages for consideration:

Also note that the creator of the articles has removed the vfd notices from each article at least once. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:20, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. WP:NOT crystal ball, in the event that these aren't pure fabrication. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. per above. EvilPhoenix talk 19:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. per above. Feydey 19:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As per above. Gwk 20:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Jaxl 20:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above, no real content anyway. --PrologFan | Talk 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Could this be the return of the cartoon vandal? Morwen - Talk 20:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Phoenix2 22:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Speculation - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 03:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, crystal ball. Radiant_>|< 11:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (as above) - The Time Killer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:03, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

WestHost, Inc.[edit]

Advertisement. EvilPhoenix talk 20:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad for non-notable company. Someone has added a copyvio notice. Gwk 20:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. --PrologFan | Talk 20:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement and copyvio. --jonasaurus 21:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! -- FunkyChicken! 06:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SUSA Reform Group[edit]

Seems to be an organisation dedicated to protesting against a student body. No Google hits. Also Union Uncovered, the same group's website, and Danny Gibson and James Forrest, it's members. DJ Clayworth 20:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn --PhilipO 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)*Delete nn --jonasaurus 21:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The link from this page to the VfD page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 22:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, student clubs/members are generally not notable. Dcarrano 22:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Harro5 01:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above royblumy 03:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable student group. JamesBurns 03:47, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Lee[edit]

Appears to be vanity/hoax. Quick google reveals little, no imdb entry, etc. Dunc|☺ 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if real, it's nn. Friday 20:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity hoax. --jonasaurus 21:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified and nn. --Etacar11 01:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity hoax. JamesBurns 03:47, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Avalon Boys (new)[edit]

Single link in page PhilipO 20:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete it's just a link. Friday 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete website advertising, non notable band. JamesBurns 03:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This band has released four albums and claims to have been played on BBC Radio. Their first album was taken from Laurel and Hardy. I don't know how well the albums have done though see [17]. Capitalistroadster 14:33, 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 KEEP. Michael Shields 05:28:49, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

John Tsombikos[edit]

Non-notable graffiti artist. I'm not able to determine his notability as I don't live in NY, but a quick google suggests he's not the most notable of artists. There's also a redirect "Borf" (that's his tag).

  • Keep came to Wikipedia specifically because of the media coverage to see if there was anything on this guy. Keep this article and expand it. Interesting topic, many people like myself will come to Wikipedia seeking more information.
  • Delete. Oliver Keenan 20:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete minor criminals are not automatically notable. Friday 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand. Without condoning what he's done, I'd like to say that his work has attracted a fair amount of attention (positive and negative) in the DC area. You may wish to do a Google search under his tag or check out this article in the 7/14 Washington Post. Doctor Whom 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage. Kappa 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact that he is very well known in the DC area, and the media coverage. --Sludge 02:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The borf tag is a meaningful part of dc culture. The story behind the borf tag and it's ubiquitousness are more interesting than those who are annoyed by grafitti are willing to admit.
  • Keep. After reading that lengthy Washington Post article, I'm convinvced. Also expand, get a picture or two (someone in DC?), and move to Borf. And remember, BORF IS GOOD FOR YOUR LIVER.--Pharos 02:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments royblumy 03:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We're only pissed that we never thought of anything as great. DaveZ 12:09, July 15, 2005
  • Keep. Graffitists are not normally notable but this fellow appears to be an exception to the rule. Capitalistroadster 05:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Extremely notable, everyone in D.C. has seen his art. He made it all the way up to NYC and San Fran. Made me smile everytime. Though, if there is an article for him, someone should start an article for Cool Disco Dan. --Skinjob 05:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been following the story on the news and then saw it in the Washington Post. Finally decided to check if his Wikipedia articale was up to day and .. here I am. I think the article should be under "Borf" though. And the article will need pictures. As the WP article attests, he did cause a fair amount of trouble with the Dept of Public Works saying they had daily phone calls about it and he was discussed throughout the blogosphere. --Sketchee 11:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notability at best. JamesBurns 03:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Few graffiti artists have emerged lately that have subverted authority to the degree of Mr. Tsombikos. His borf character is interesting, his messages are interesting, and his stories are even more interesting...to me there is more harm in removing the entry than in keeping the entry.
  • Keep per media coverage. FunkyChicken! 06:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Gamble the "Unbreakable"[edit]

Vanity. EvilPhoenix talk 20:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete yep, that's vanity. Friday 21:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --jonasaurus 21:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Kaldari 01:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 03:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the author is this "Unbreakable". Redwolf24 03:51, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Liam Pender[edit]

Vanity/non-notable. Didn't find one hit in Google. Mrendo 20:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax, vanity, other? nn at any rate. Friday 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/vanity. --Etacar11 01:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as vanity. --Dmcdevit·t 07:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gannochy[edit]

Delete not notable. Friday 20:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Created by the same person who created the SUSA articles. Gwk 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bar. Dcarrano 01:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another bar. --Calton | Talk 03:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable student bar. JamesBurns 03:50, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Glow (the club)[edit]

Delete there are many, many bars in the world. Nothing remotely suggests notability. Friday 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The SUSA guy again; may even be a hoax. Gwk 21:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oliver Keenan 21:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and drop a note to Wikitravel. Radiant_>|< 08:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stirling-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:51, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita vihar[edit]

This was recently nominated and just closed (by me). The previous nomination received little attention (two and a half votes) and I therefore closed it as "inconclusive" (and so default to keep). However, it remains a 3-sentence article that's probably advertising and in any case is a non-notable appartment complex. So, it should be deleted (this time). Dmcdevit·t 06:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, and this is th old nomination in case you want to see it. Dmcdevit·t 06:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. ral315 06:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It might be nice to go there, *lost in wishful thinking*. I think I'll check out New Delhi travel sites..... no use for this here, however. -mysekurity 06:33, 31 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!) 12:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzum[edit]

Band that has yet to release an album, in fact yet to start any work. David | Talk 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Classic band vanity that deserves a good flushing. Bye-bye, Boyzum. - Lucky 6.9 21:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Friday 23:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, band vanity. Jaxl 23:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 03:52, 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. Dmcdevit·t 06:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Battle juggling[edit]

As far as I can tell, battle juggling either doesn't exist or is relatively unknown. Zero relevant Google hits. Rhobite 21:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm not doubting people do this, but anyone can invent a sport. Friday 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You got juggled!" Delete, unverifiable and in all probability not notable even if it were. Dcarrano 01:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per no google hits. should be a sport though royblumy 03:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and Delete - FunkyChicken! 06:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:19, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Illinois[edit]

Seems to be nonsense, but I'm listing it here just to make sure. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 21:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not nonsense, check the news, independance was just declared and the whole area is pretty confused. There are police outside my building now trying to keep people calm. The legislature voted with a 2/3rds majority to seceed from the union. Details as to why are still kind of vague, and a lot of people are fleeing the new republic for Indiana and Wisconsin. I'll be packing up in an hour... Illinoisian 22:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just did check a few news sites, and can find no reference to the event. Almost certainly a hoax, and I know I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt by listing it here. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well all I can is give it some time, we're still confused as to what is happening here ourselves. I'm sure there will be an official statement by the President of the US tonight about the situation. Illinoisian 22:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't a hoax, which I'm still 99% sure it is. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well be prepared for a serious shock tonight... Illinoisian 22:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definate hoax. Well written hoax though. Send to BJAODN. If this were true, it'd be on every channel and we would've heard of this coming up. Redwolf24 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, thought I should give it the benefit of the doubt. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:13, 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 merge and redirect to Ron and Fez. Dmcdevit·t 06:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tasteless Ginny[edit]

Not notable - she plays a marginal role in a call-in radio show, has run a website, and worked at a radio station. CDC (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to Ron and Fez Ginny has played roles in the Ron and Fez show, Eddie Trunk's Friday Night Rocks show, and the Sports Guys show during WNEW's talk days. She was the main producer during the Ron and Fez dot-com show, which is not a 'marginal position;' however new listeners may not recall her because her place in the show is the show's distant history, prior to 2001. She's had contributions to three of WNEW's talk shows plus currently produces WNEW's overnight programming. Her role, during her tenure on the Ron and Fez Show, was just as significant as Billy Staples and Al Dukes, both of whom have their own entries.
  • Delete or Merge to WNEW-FM; not notable enough for her own article. siafu 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete royblumy 03:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Ron and Fez
  • Merge and redirect to Ron and Fez. Not notable enough on her own. JamesBurns 03:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ron and Fez.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Xiu Miu Siu[edit]

A musician who used his own blood in a "water organ". Implausible, unreferenced, apparently unverifiable since all the google hits are wikipedia or mirrors. There are some other implausible claims in linked articles. Kappa 22:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax; his "hit" "Blood Organ Revival" gets 0 non-Wiki Google hits, and IMDB "Rocky" article makes no mention of his name in the credits. ("Eye of the Tiger" was from "Rocky III" anyway.) Of course, the whole idea of the article is ludicrous on the face of it, but, just making it clear. Dcarrano 23:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Phoenix2 23:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Friday 23:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax royblumy 03:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:55, 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 no consensus. Woohookitty 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry[edit]

  1. All the reasons given in Eloquence's post
  2. I've moved the content to the Poetry Wikicity.
  3. Poetry can already be added in Wikipedia:User pages, and linked by other's from there. JesseW 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be too hard to find. They have a billion different mini-wikis all rolled into one giant wiki. ‡ Jarlaxle 00:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then, once the VFD is over, the admin who is moving it should let us know the new location, then yall can begin the linking on various pages here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The sandbox is for testing edits, and not an entertainment incubator for those who have tired of writing an encyclopedia. - Longhair | Talk 03:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Longhair. The sandbox should be used only for testing. JamesBurns 03:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepQuit being a bunch of boring pansies. "This is an encyclopedia, blah blah blah," who cares. Quit taking life so seriously and go outside for a while, nerds. Just keep it.
  • I removed the speedy tag placed by the anon who wrote the post immediately above that brought me here and vote delete. I'm sure you can get more delete votes through speedy tags if you continue. - BanyanTree 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep great page!  Grue  18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, Wikipedia should not be a forum for fanfic or home-written stories or poems. Radiant_>|< 11:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Erik's post and my previous votes on Sandobx games. Angela. 01:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If really necessary, move to a separate WikiProject like Wikiquote etc. If you guys can't be bothered to keep it here. --Mark J 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Mark, It Has Already Been Moved - see wikicities:c:poetry:Sandbox Poetry (from Wikipedia). I would love for you to volunteer to maintain, promote and add to it, but it's pretty clearly not part of an encyclopedia. JesseW 22:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Encylopedias don't typically have sandboxes, either. Your reasoning, therefore, seems to indicate that you would support the deletion of Wikipedia:Sandbox or at least transwikiying it. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:54, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Quite correct, YOu. ;-) I didn't fully explain what I meant. My reasoning (shared by many Wikipedians, AFAIK) is that Wikipedia should have two general categories of things:
        • encyclopedic material(i.e. the article and Category namespaces) and
        • material that helps us to write the encyclopedic material (i.e. the policy and guidelines pages, the WikiProject pages, the Template namespace, the User namespace(so we can communicate in public with each other regarding writing the encylopedic material) and the Sandbox(as a place for new users to try out the mechanisms we use to write the encyclopedia)).
      • Wikipedia:Sandbox/Poetry does not fit into either of these categories, and it has a specific place dedicated to it(the Poetry Wikicity) against which the only argument presented is that it is "too hard to find".
      • Regarding that argument, I think most people would be *much* more likely to look for a place to read and write Wiki Poetry in the list of Wikicities, or as a link from the poetry article(which I've just added), than to look in the place for newbies to try out the editing tools, i.e. the Sandbox. A subpage of the Sandbox is about the one of the least easy-to-find places I can think of. So I don't think the claim that the Poetry wikicity is "too hard to find" holds much water. And nobody has presented any other arguments against the Poetry wikicity. I hope this is a more complete explanation of my reasoning. JesseW 02:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Understood, but I stand by my vote. As I've said on the VFd's of other sections of the sandbox, if there is a "theme section" of the sandbox, it is an extension thereof for people to test editing by writing poetry (not that they can't in the regular sandbox, but I still see nothing wrong with it as an extension of the sandbox. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 17:57, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, this discussion is getting quite long, but it's interesting, so... "my vote" - I didn't see that you voted - did you mean to? The idea that this page was a "theme" section of the sandbox was one I had not considered - it describes itself, and seems to be generally understood, as permanent (both in it's existence, and in the existence of the content on it (only as permanent as any wiki page, of course)), located in the Sandbox simply so they could escape scrutiny.
          • The idea that it represents a sort of "themed area" for test edits is one I had not imagined. While on the face of it, this seems fine, when looked at carefully, it makes no sense. The content of test edits, by their very nature (as tests of the editing software and formatting options), doesn't matter, and so the idea of having themes for them is fundamentally contradictory. Thanks for the discussion! JesseW 02:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. As I think on this more, the idea that these subpages are a place for the same sort of test edits found on Wikipedia:Sandbox makes less and less sense. The Sandbox is blanked (other than a simple header) every few hours - do you really believe that the people who put in all the time and effort to create the layout of Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers(which I liked so much I copied it myself so the work wouldn't be lost if the page was deleted) would be OK with it being blanked out after a few hours. And if you claim that the checkers layout should be considered part of the Sandbox header - making the edits involved in making the moves the ones that are "test edits" I would point out that getting those edits right is quite difficult and would probably be beyond the skill of those who would be using the real Sandbox page. It just doesn't fly. Nice idea, though. JesseW 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not duplicate content if it can be avoided. Since we already have a sandbox and users can experiment with poetry on their user pages or subpages, this page is redundant. - Jersyko talk 15:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Beefy[edit]

Delete. Vanity/advertisement. Only 19 unique hits for "beefy" + "whitesican" (not counting the two from his own website).[18] Postdlf 22:36, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bestandworst.com[edit]

Delete non-notable website and advertising, WP:NOT a webdirectory. Only Google hit is the site itself; Alexa ranking 73120 (I was surprised it was above 100k, but it's still nn). -Splash 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Friday 23:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Splash. Dcarrano 01:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn User:Davetunney 02:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Grpunkim 19:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 72,369 isn't a rock-bottom alexa ranking, but this article makes it hard to think of the site as notable -Harmil 03:56, 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. Probable sockpuppet votes have been discounted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Resident Evil[edit]

  • Delete nn forum with Alexa rank 868,000, Google hits all seem to be search engines or link farms or similar. This article at the moment is just 'biographies' of its participants. -Splash 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a web directory. Friday 23:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate documentation of historical website and notable participants. Upon further investigation, one would see the fact that Totally Resident Evil is an affiliate of most prominent Resident Evil fan sites, and well known throughout that community. Obscurity is relative, and thus not a valid justification for the deletion of this section. -Encyclopediac 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user's first edit. All others are to the article in question.-Splash 01:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Kairos 00:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Entry has been recently edited by forum members to be more compliant and respectful of Wikipedia's policies. As previously mentioned, the pending TotallyRE website and forum itself are well recognized and affiliated throughout the Resident Evil community. The "obscure" label is in fact relative, and is also based on someone's arbitrary opinion. -Sunderland
  • This user's 4th and 5th edits. All others are to the article in question.-Splash 01:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Totally Resident Evil is a large forum in the Resident evil fan community. Information provided is to show any reader the light hearted side of the forum, as well as give information about the forum, prominent members and website itself. Currently a work in progress among the users of the forum. Biographies are just a part of the overall whole.2,035 registered members, 140 Active Members, and an administration known throughout the Resident Evil community is far from Obscure. -Dek
  • Keep There is no valid reason to delete Totally Resident Evil. Even if it was just a list of members, I don't see how that's a reason to delete it. The members of the forum are what make up the forum itself. Without the members, there is no forum. Beside that, the forum itself has a huge online following and an important part of the Resident Evil online community. - Bio
  • Pseudosigned by User:Ambient-nemesis. User's 3rd and 4th edits, others to the article. -Splash 01:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia has to consider the notability of the things it has articles about. It is difficult to claim notability for a website that does not yet exist and which has only a hundred-or-so active members. There are many fora out there with many more than that. Once the site has become properly notable, the article can be recreated. You may also want to read about what what Wikipedia is not — specifically, it's not a webdirectory. I've marked the votes above as a common practise to point out to whoever closes the VfD that these users may have been created specifically to support this vote. See sockpuppets and meatpuppets. -Splash 01:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRE has made a community effort to preserve its place on the internet for web history, and several members have taken an active part in that effort by making accounts and contributing. Now you seem to have some sort of vendetta against us. We aren't Meatpuppets. However, if you are so inclined, I would be more than happy to introduce you to a Meatpuppet of an entirely different sort, Mr. "Splash". Who names an account after a sucky Tom Hanks movie, anyway?--Encyclopediac 03:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wikipedia has to consider the notability of the subjects of its articles"? That sounds like an excuse to keep the scope of the wikiproject as small as possible. Notability is purely relative. Within its own sphere, TRE is most definitely notable, and I'm amazed by the fact that any informative, non-biased, well written article would be so widely opposed just because a few of you cling to rules. Wikipedia is a very promising outlet for education, perhaps even better than a library, and to think that you would discriminate against something solely because it's "not-notable"? What if no one was interested in Quantum Physics either? Would you stamp an nn on it and give it a delete too?--Encyclopediac 02:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I joined yesterday to write in the entry before the deletion flag was even put on this entry. - User:Ambient-nemesis
  • Delete, non-notable forum per Alexa, Google, and membership total. Dcarrano 01:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, not encyclopedic. -- BD2412 talk 02:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and darn those socks! Radiant_>|< 08:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep TRE is one of the many Resident Evil Forums, but has come a longer way than all of the ones i've been too (Pretty much all you can think of). I see no reason to get rid of such an active thing of beauty.- DavidKing04
  • Delete. Non-notable. JZ 00:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Plus its Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! -- FunkyChicken! 06:12, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) Dmcdevit·t 05:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Soggy biscuit[edit]

It's wholly and vaguely speculative ("reputedly played", "reportedly been played". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (of course). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard of this, but we don't need articles on every random bit of folklore. Friday 23:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while this isn't a good reason to make that my choice - even thinking about that game makes me feel extraordinarily unwell. However, I wouldn't delete it on the ground of it being hearsay, as many conspiracy theory pages exist on wikipedia too. I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 23:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified at this point. Dcarrano 01:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, google results indicate this is widely believed to be a real activity. Wikipedia is not censored. Kappa 01:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioning censorship is a red herring; this seems at best to be an urban myth, and doesn't (on the evidence offered — i.e., none) deserve its own article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Grosscruft. -- BD2412 talk 02:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 08:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • MErge into public schools in Britain Proto t c 14:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable teen prank, unencyclopedic. JamesBurns 03:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Kappa. --Edcolins 10:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • MErge into Urban Legends
MSTCrow 04:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • But that reference is just as bad as ours, and offers no grounds for keeping the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa. And even if it isn't true, it's of interest as folklore. --Yu Ninjie 03:45, 31 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 SPEEDIED, but not by me. Splash 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxlover2[edit]

Original content is clearly an attack. Algebra 23:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedy if possible. As per above. Gwk 23:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wholly content-free. siafu 00:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - attack page. -- BD2412 talk 02:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle galeas[edit]

Delete nn vanity. 2 Google hits, neither apply here. Notable lower case surname, though. -Splash 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bad grammar vanity piece. – Seancdaug 23:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above. Gwk 23:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mill show[edit]

Neologism that doesn't appear to have been picked up in common use. Hard to find information on Google since irrelevant pages come up, but I have tried searching "mill show" in combination with shows from that list, and I haven't come up with anything. – flamurai (t) 23:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC) Related category up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 14. – flamurai (t) 01:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is actually a widely used term within the industry. Walk into any TV station or TV production company in North America and they will know what it is. As for Google is filled with so much garbage searching with it is practically useless in most cases. Spotteddogsdotorg 01:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be a true vote as this user and I have a history. Spotteddogsdotorg 04:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a true vote all right because any search engine will confirm that the term does not even seem to exist. Enter "mill show" + television and then filter out things like puppy, rumor, "run-of-the-mill", and a Canadian show called The Mill Show, and you are still only left with a handful of irrelevant hits [19]. Further comment: Any look at User:Spotteddogsdotorg's history will show a history of creating nonsense articles (like anchor bimbo) and pushing a peculiar POV or possibly a vendetta against certain TV anchors. This latest article would seem to fit the same pattern. Kaibabsquirrel 05:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 03:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, unsourced neologism or hoax. (Note that there is also category of the same name which should get a CfD if this VfD is successful.)
  • Delete non notable neologism. JamesBurns 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everytime I worked one of these gigs we called them "Sh*t shows". I put the body of the article on BJAODN and I hope thats OK, if not I'll delete it. UncleFloyd 05:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very hard to find information on this subject, however, the original show was renamed Made in Canda with a US title of The Industry, the idea behind the name was it was a "run-of-the-mill show", which I feel most of you would understand better. Reguardless, its a jargon and not article worthy. Maybe make a mention on an article somewhere. ∞Who?¿? 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep usefull information, slightly trivial, but usefull Jack_Cain
  • Keep usefull information. --Allycat
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Trevor Slocum[edit]

Vanity -- BMIComp (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Teen vanity, too. Gwk 00:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kairos 00:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but userfy. The author appears to be new user User:Tj1991. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. Link from VfD page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 01:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Dcarrano 01:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. -- BD2412 talk 02:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 04:00, 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. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Corposcindosis[edit]

  • Delete I would like to suggest that the entry for "corposcindosis" is deleted from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is a made-up term, and an apparent self-indulgence on the part of the author. -BF (Nom by User:69.203.193.133, and this was his 7th edit).
  • Fixed up the nom process. No vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism (article states the word was coined in 2005) and probable hoax (no non-Wikipedia Google hits). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new term referring to a new disease caused by a new surgery, ETS. Non-Wikipedia references to "CS" abound on websites and discussion forums about hyperhisrosis and ETS surgery. Though in some cases the abbreviation "CS" may refer to the euphemism "compensatory sweating", it is clear that many references are made to the entire syndrome caused by damage to the upper thoracic nerve chain, the split-body syndrome now known as corposcindosis. 71.129.158.210 Songboy1234 05:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by 71.129.158.210. Xoloz 15:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, hoax Xoloz 15:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC) New grounds: unverifiable, original research, neologism. Xoloz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. I'll mention, also, that patients don't name syndromes or diseases, doctors do. If this isn't a hoax, and if it's new, osme doctor is already naming the syndrome. Ken 02:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Xoloz, you offer no reasoning or evidence to support your position. I would invite others to peruse Xoloz' personal WIki page and make a judgement as to neutrality and/or seriousness. More to the point, please visit http://p069.ezboard.com/betsandreversals http://www.noetsuk.com/ http://home.swipnet.se/sympatiska/index3.htm http://www.terra.es/personal8/hiperhidrosis/ http://www.esfbchannel.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Post-ETS http://www.ets-sideeffects.netfirms.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathectomy http://www.truthaboutets.com

CS is not nonsense. Severing any nerve will cause the organ, gland or muscle controlled via that nerve to malfunction. This is no different for the autonomic nervous system. A surgical sympathectomy can and does cause the sympathetic nervous system to be divided into 2 distinct regions, one dead and the other hyperactive. This makes perfect sense to anyone knowledgeable about human physiology.71.129.158.210 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CS is no hoax, though the thousands of sufferers certainly wish that it was.

    • Friend, ETS seems to be real, but these sites do not appear to mention "Corposcindosis" at all. Now, I have cerebral palsy myself (which is very real), but if someone invented a symptom of that disorder called "Corposcindosis", it wouldn't merit an article. Understand, if this is real, no Google hits is a valid reason for thinking it isn't -- nothing personal. Please sign your contributions with four tildes if you wish to be taken more seriously. Again, nothing personal, but anonymous users here are legion, and their claims are suspect. Xoloz 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note also that the article's claim that "Corposcindosis" was coigned in 2005 is prima facie evidence that an article under that name doesn't belong here. ETS very well might. Xoloz 23:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to be anonymous. I'm songboy1234. Xoloz, with due respect, your analogy to cerebral palsy is not apt. No one has "invented" a symptom. The symptoms are real, predicted by physiology, and well documented in the published medical literature, (not to mention by thousands of oral histories on many forums). The charges of "hoax" and "nonsense" are utterly without foundation.

The charge of "neologism" does have merit. I coined the term. However, you must understand the situation to understand why the doctors will never name this disease. The doctors are CAUSING this disease. A much better analogy would be to lobotomy. A particular mental/emotional syndrome was caused by pre-frontal lobotomy, yet to my knowledge it was never named, a linguistic injustice if ever there was one. Instead, doctors busied themselves publishing "studies" which "proved" that lobotomy is safe and effective. Corposcindosis is a specific example of autonomic neuropathy, but it requires its own name. It is definable, diagnosable, measurable, it is specific, it is real, and thousands are suffering.

I submit that waiting for doctors to name this disease constitutes a profound irresponsibility to the language. 71.129.158.210 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Songboy1234 05:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • An encyclopedia is a place of secondary sources -- no name establishes itself first in an encyclopedia. Once the community affected largely acknowledges the name, and it has been around for a few years, then it will be eligible for inclusion. As for my suggestion that this was nonsense or a hoax, I do apologize; please understand that many people submit hoaxes to Wikipedia, and the lack of search results convinced me that this was likely the case. I don't know enough to say what this disease is, or whether you have it, but it is clear that you sincerely believe you do. Xoloz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article author admits its a neologism. Original research, no references, not verifiable. Quale 07:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article. -- Crevaner 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism/contents unverifiable. Dcarrano 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • This term is completely bogus. Some unhappy ETS patients have an axe to grind about the side-effects of their surgery, so they are appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause, both in this and in the ETS entry. The results of ETS are not clearly known, making it a controversial procedure, and it should be stated as such. But ETS side-effects are only "now known as corposcindosis" by the author of this entry and possibly some of his fellow conspirators. "CS" is in fact a common abbreviation of compensatory sweating, and this is a term widely accepted by the both the medical and lay community. "Corposcindosis" is a neologism created with the sole purpose of underhandedly denouncing ETS. It is a biased and deceptive term that is in no way encyclopedic. The side-effects are real; the term is not. (No vote. I nominated the deletion.) -BF (Note: I tried to delete this comment but I guess we're not allowed to do that. I don't mean to downplay the sufferings of these people or to hinder their cause. It's the method that I disagree with, and I think this is an inappropriate entry for Wikipedia.)
  • Delete on condition that sources are not identified, and accuracy disputes are not clarified. In other words, if the article is cleaned up, identifies sources, and accuracy disputes are corrected, keep, otherwise, delete. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 14:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I was not aware of the "neologism" rule as I authored the article. I think this is clear, as I innocently took credit for having coined the term in the article itself. Based on that criticism, I now agree the article should be deleted until such time as the term (or a different one of the same meaning) comes into wider use.

However, I feel compelled to straighten out BF on a few matters. Yes, the term "compensatory sweating" was coined by surgeons and is widely used, often interchangeably with the more correct terms, "compensatory hyperhidrosis" and "reflex hyperhidrosis", which are also used by surgeons. All current terms referring to this side effect are speculative, because no one knows what causes it. An accurate term would be "surgically induced hyperhidrosis". But we know for certain that the term "compensatory sweating" is a euphemism, and is medically incorrect, because the sweating referred to is excessive. Wide use does not necessarily mean accuracy. Truth is ultimately what we're after.

The syndrome caused by ETS surgery, which I have named Corposcindosis, is a manifestation of the PRIMARY effects of the surgery, in addition to the SIDE effects, an important distinction.

Referring to me as a "conspirator" is a disgusting libel. What purpose is attempted by it one can only guess. In one breath, BF rants " 'Corposcindosis' is a neologism created with the sole purpose of underhandedly denouncing ETS" but in the next breath admits "The side-effects are real". The purpose of the article was to document a syndrome which no one (not even BF) denies exists, not to "denounce" anything. If factual information reflects badly on a medical procedure, so be it.

Now, BF - please, in great detail, would you please elucidate any factual errors on the Endoscopic Thoracic Sympathectomy page, or the soon-to-be-deleted Corposcindosis page? Edit them in, or make me aware and I will do so. But otherwise, will you please retract your false statements alleging "appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause". That statement is beyond the pale.

My only "error" was coining a new term, one which badly needs to be coined. The scientific evidence supporting the thesis is beyond question. Songboy1234 05:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm not going to give you great detail because I don't want a point-by-point argument with you. My dispute with the ETS article is not so much the facts, although I think the negatives are over-represented, but the loaded language. What I meant by deception is that it isn't neutral. And I do apologize for using the word "conspirators," a loaded word if there ever was one, as well as for the entire comment, which as I stated before I tried to delete, but someone undeleted it. It was written with emotion rather than objectivity, as I believe the two entries were. I just find that a prospective ETS patient is always stuck with finding a middle ground between biased (although technically "true") statements by surgeons and biased (although technically "true") statements by angry patients. They both err by omission. The objective, neutral "truth" about ETS needs to be out there, but the current Wikipedia entry isn't it. I suppose I could try to edit the page, but I don't want an editing war. I wish you good health, and I'm sorry that my comments came off so personally, but that's my last word on this. -Bruce


And there you have it for all to see. Bruce, BF, comes on, nominates the page for deletion, makes horrific personal accusations, states that another page is biased, and that it is being appropriated for some "cause", says there is "loaded language", that it "isn't neutral" and yet . . . offers not ONE WORD supporting his assertions. What loaded language? He doesn't say. Biased how? He doesn't say. Negatives are "overrepresented". What does that mean? If you have a situation where factually there are more "negatives" than "positives" then negatives SHOULD be overrepresented.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. A majority wanted deletion, quite a few wanted BJAODN (which suggests they consider the content unencyclopedic but of some amusement value). While I'm tempted to interpret the BJAODN's as delete votes, I think there's the germ of an encyclopedia article here, and BJAODN does not necessarily imply deletion; it's a comment on content. There is some concern that the existing content may be a copyright violation, and this should be addressed in the appropriate place. If no attempt is made to turn this into a neutral encyclopedia article, relisting on VfD after 28 days may be in order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for further discussion.

Calvary Christian High School[edit]

This well-written parody article deserves a spot in BJAODN (reminds me of the Landover Church website), but it doesn't belong in the regular article space. Too bad the scrofulous school articles we have to put up with don't rise to this standard of excellence. Denni☯ 00:33, 2005 July 14 (UTC)

DELETE: This is the page's original author. I started working on this page planning for it to be a true school website. When a friend came over to visit one night though, we decided to have a little fun with it. We would like it deleted now though, all evidence destroyed so-to-speak, to prevent any offense in the future. Thanks. -Hermes-

  • I don't do this a lot, but delete unless basically rewritten from scratch before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN --Carnildo 02:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator would like it deleted, not moved to BJAODN. -Hermes-

DELETE: Co-creator would rather have the page deleted. We wish to cause no controversy. -Apollo-

  • 'keep this please but move it to the bjadon like carnildo suggested a real one can be made later by the original authors Yuckfoo 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN! will accomodate it... the article space will not. GarrettTalk 09:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per author request - BJAODN might be a good choice - Tεxτurε 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Just because author regrets he made the article doesn't mean that we have to listen to him- when he hit the submit button, he released it into GFDL. Besides, it's funny, and deserves its own spot in BJAODN. ral315 23:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, I don't regret making the article. Secondly, it's not a matter of what you don't have to do, but one of respect and kindness. -Hermes-
  • Delete It's not nice to keep an article just because the creator says to delete it. 64.109.253.204 04:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as Wikipedia is not a webspace provider, and the original author has requested its deletion. --Idont Havaname 22:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, part of it is funny, but there will be more funny articles. Everything from the "Goals" section down is a copyright violation from here: [20]. -Willmcw 04:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Article has been edited well beyond the author's right to request deletion M0rd0r 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, "Willmcw," accurate scrutinization will reveal that everything below goals is not a copyright violation. Read the text carefully. Such prudence is crucial when broadcasting such bold claims to such a large constituency. -Apollo-

Still a copyvio. The changes you've made don't seem extensive enough to make it a protected parody. --Carnildo 17:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article m0rd0r? It's just a big joke. -Hermes-


Does this need to be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_14&oldid=1081092085"