Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 18

July 18

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Evacipate

A neologism from a movie that has no definition other than those "proposed" by the movie's fans. Joyous (talk) 00:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn neologism/dictdef. Ken 00:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Gwk 00:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or if verifiable merge with Primer (movie) Flowerparty 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary and delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "The word was not defined in the movie... Here are some definitions proposed by various fans." Oy. Dcarrano 04:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Cnwb 07:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I want to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, so I'm going to vote keep. Wait a second, no I don't! Delete this, delete it most smitingly, with no moves, merges, redirects, transwikings, or anything else that would preserve in any way any of this content. It doesn't even qualify as a neologism or, I would think, even as Primercruft: it's a (non-notable?) fictional character's attempt to cheat at Scrabble. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Send it to the dumpster of history and be done with it. The Literate Engineer 15:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Primer. Binadot 02:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Article has been tagged to merge. Joyous (talk) 16:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Pig

Delete. Schools may or may not be inherently notable but fictional creatures that are the icon of a summer program in one particular school are certainly not. I suppose it could be merged if that's what people really want. -Splash 00:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hardcore not-notable. Gwk 00:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreed, seriously nn jamesgibbon 00:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yellow Pig's Day. Pburka 00:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Yellow Pig's Day. Fernando Rizo 01:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yellow Pig's Day. --FOo 05:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yellow Pig's Day or Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. Cnwb 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge redirect to Yellow Pig's Day. JamesBurns 09:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yellow Pig's Day or Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics. --Omniwolf 17:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.--GrandCru 03:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Yellow Pig's Day. Gruepig 19:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Unununium (band)

Delete nn band. May not even exist, makes no claim to notability, has no presence on allmusic.com. Unununium jazz gets 74 unique Google hits (difficult to filter out the actual chemical element, but I figure the word jazz should be a specific enough link). -Splash 00:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Gwk 00:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep (borderline speedy keep, but will hold back) Notes: This article has existed for a whopping eight minutes before being hit with a vfd. Band has ties to NYC jazz and US national pop scene as well as a strong cult following. Needs time to be expanded. Also, everyone also knows that non-noteable is not a valid reason for deletion. Mystache 00:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-noteable is a very valid reason for deletion. Borisblue 09:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete although if someone points me that this is up to the standards on WP:MUSIC I can change my vote. drini ☎ 01:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No signs of compliance with WP:MUSIC and no All Music Guide article. A Google search showed Geocities pages no longer active showing the band has been active in New Jersey but not further afield. Capitalistroadster 01:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that WP:MUSIC is satisfied. Dcarrano 04:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible hoax or vanity page. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless proof can be found of notability (though it seems unlikely). Cnwb 07:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• On second thought, Delete. I really dont care. Mystache 15:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Omniwolf 17:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Couldn't find anything at all useful as we are not IMDB and therefore not a film repository. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cranky Bugs & Other Thomas Stories, Thomas Comes to Breakfast & Other Thomas Adventures

Is a single video about Thomas the Tank Engine notable? It doesnt have a listing on imdb, when I figured out it was a Thomas story, I went over to the main article and tried to see if there was even a relevant article or place in the article to link it to. There is not, and I don't really think it merits inclusion. Also, article seems to be a simple cut-and-paste from somewhere on the Internet. EvilPhoenix talk 00:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible hoax. Gwk 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I did find a listing on Amazon, but I still don't think it's notable. EvilPhoenix talk 00:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

At least it isn't a hoax. It's still not notable, though. Gwk 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Other article found, and added. Additionally, IP address of page creator vandalised Homestar Runner. EvilPhoenix talk 02:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge both to Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends. Even if there isn't currently a "videos" section there, it would make sense to add one, I'd think. Doesn't have to be as much detail as these entries, of course; they should probably be one-liners. Dcarrano 04:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, non notable videos. JamesBurns 09:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both to Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends.

--JimmyTheWig 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 16:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Frim

Delete apparent neologism. It doesn't matter how I Google for this, I can't see any results that appear to confirm the existence of the word. And no, it shouldn't be redirect to (please be red) From because that'd be a dicdef. -Splash 00:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Google certainly does not have all the words of the language. I'm sure that there are many words in the Oxford English Dictionary that one would not find in a Google search. Many words have a conversation only beginning and later break out into the Google searchable world. Unsigned comment by anon IP 24.20.76.42. Author of the article.-Splash 00:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Splash. FreplySpang (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I am happy to see the article deleted so long as you can answer this question- what do you call a frim?? Are you suggesting that there is no word at all for that sort of thing??

  I would also like to note that neither Splash nor FreplySpang are Hollywood TV writers. A lot you two know about sitcoms, with your noses in philosophy books or political science articles all day long. Have you ever been to a Hollywood pool party??? Well, then: You wouldn't know.

  • In response to your challenge I will take what I hope is not flaimbait at its word and suggest comedic misunderstanding, the classic miscommunication or it's more verbose brother getting the wires crossed. And what about that old favorite, dramatic irony? Sure, perhaps they don't have the flair or brevity of "frim," but what of that ignoble day, thousands of years in the future, when we've run out of four letter words and there is a more important concept than this that needs rapid communicaion. It is that day that I will raise my tequila and celebrate what I believe will be the outcome of this VfD. Sirmob 03:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The need for a word does not prove that the word exists. Delete. --JimmyTheWig 16:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is wiktionary for dictionarydefinitions, and WP is not a neologism or slang guide (WP:WIN) drini ☎ 01:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Presumably these Hollywood TV writers would write the word into a drama or sitcome if the word was that common in those circles. This appears not to have happened. Apart from this, it would have to convince us that it wouldn't be a dictdef. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Well, we've heard from the word police, now let's hear from the people. What concerns me is the slippery slope that we are on. Sure, a child word, just a few years old and getting used to life, like "frim" is easy to attack. The gang of bullies has gathered around this tender child, knocked her down and are ready to try to kick her to death. I say "NO." Let us unfurl the banner, raise the roof beam high, light my candle, break out the tequila. Where will it stop. One day "frim" is got rid of, next day perhaps another newish word like "spam" used to mean unwanted Email will be axed. Then day by day the nitpicking, jack booted word police will get rid of more and more words on one pretext or another until we are reduced to trying to communicate with a few guttural utterances. Imagine scientists, poets, philosphers trying to communicate with "arrrghh" and "aye aye." A new dark ages will be ushered in made worse, and perhaps prolonged by the lights of perverted science. Let us, the DEFENDERS OF LANGUAGE, therefore conduct ourselves so that if we exist for a thousand years, historians will look back and say, "this was their finest hour."

  I would also like to point out that I was not the one who put the "definitions" section in the comedy article. If it is forbidden to discuss word meanings in Wikipedia, then the whole "definitions" section should be deleted.

• Somewhere deep in my soul I do wish I could say wictionary, but I cannot, so my suggestion to the most determined author is to save the wikitext and fight this battle himself where it has the slightest chance of survival, if he feels he truly must. As for Wikipedia, dicdef, delete Sirmob 03:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, neologism plus unfunny clownish antics on VfD. Dcarrano 04:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• There is no "strong delete" option. In fact, you can only delete something, you can't do it strongly or weakly. Just shows what an absence of intellect you are working with that you would write something like that. So sad.
  • You have, naturally, studied carefully the Guide to Votes for Deletion which gives meaning to both 'strong' and 'weak' votes. And you no doubt did that before making your comment. Of course, you are right to think that such comments advance your cause, and will persuade everybody so addressed to vote in your favour. -Splash 13:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a site for advocating neologisms. —Tokek 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Cnwb 07:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, neologism, dictionary definition, any which on its own would suffice. Morwen - Talk 08:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Merriam-Webster cannot be expected to keep up with the language. jacobmc 12:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• There is no such thing as a "frim". The Forest Research Institute of Malaysia is FRIM. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting invented words. Delete. Uncle G 16:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary: There is such a thing as frim, but it is not what this definition claims; it's listed in the OED as an obscure and now unused word. I have replaced the article text with the proper definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandesuka (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 July 2005 UTC
  • There's no such thing (or indeed person, concept, place, or event) as a frim, though. Your new definition is for an adjective, note, not a noun. Please don't put an article in Wikipedia and then immediately vote to transwiki it to Wiktionary. By doing that you have made more work for other editors to do, in manually transwikiing the article, entirely unnecessarily. Please write your dictionary articles in Wiktionary directly, especially in cases when that is where you want them to be. Uncle G 22:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary. The current version of the article is just a dicdef. For the previous versio, i would want citations of its use, plus soem reson to think such use was notabable and the article ever likely to be more than a dicdef of recent slang or jargon. If the use in the "comminc misunderstandign conversation" sense can be established, that should go to wiktionary too. DES 20:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move it to wiktionary if it were real, but it's not. There's no words even beginning with f-r-i-m as far as I can find, nevermind 'frim' itself. MrD 01:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC) (Another visiting Wiktionary sysop.)
• Delete: NN, neologism. --Ragib 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• If one of this article's solemn defenders can provide any evidence that this word ever existed, may he please put it forward now. I've been through the Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary and the OED, and I can't find any traces of "frim" whatsoever. This is obviously a hoax, especially when you consider that the author of this article, an anonymous editor with IP 24.20.76.42, placed a link to frim on the comedy article. See the diff. My vote is strong delete. Binadot 02:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a "solemn defender" of the original, stupid definition, but you didn't go through the OED carefully enough. from the OED online (subscription required):

frim (a)
Obs. exc. dial.   
Forms: 1 freme, 4 frym, 6-7 frimm(e, (7 frime, 8 frem), 7- frim. [OE. frme:prehistoric *frami-, cognate with fram adj., forward, advanced, bold.] 
a. Vigorous, flourishing; after OE. only in physical sense (or fig. of this), luxuriant in growth, plump, full-fleshed.    
b. Abundant in sap, juicy, full of moisture; rarely in unfavourable sense. Also of sap: Abundant, rich.    
c. Easily melting, soluble, fusible. 
 Beowulf 1932 Mod ryo wæ fremu folces cwen. c1000 Cædmon's Gen. 2328 (Gr.) Ic am magorince mine sylle godcunde gife gastes 
mihtum, freondsped fremum. 13.. E.E. Allit. P. A. 1078, & twelue syez on er ay beren ful frym [fruits]. c1420 Liber Cocorum (1862) 
5 Cast on e powder of hare I wot; Hit is so frym, ren hyt wylle An malt as sugur. 1589 Mar Martine 3 Abbots were fat and friers frimme. 
1600 HOLLAND Livy VI. vii. (1609) 221 Those nations that by long peace were most frimme and lustie [ex integerrimis]. 
1601  Pliny I. 348 Many are so frim and free of milke, that [etc.]. Ibid. 463 The timber also is more frim and soft. 1604 DRAYTON 
Owle 5 The frim sap..From the full root, doth swell the plenteous rynde. 1613  Poly-olb. xiii, My frim and lusty flank Her bravery 
then displays. 1622 Ibid. xxvii, Her deare daughter Dale, which her frim Cheeke doth lay To her cleere mothers Breast. 1657 AUSTEN 
Fruit Trees I. 136 Seede plants are commonly more frim straight and handsome, then wood-stocks. 1669 WORLIDGE Syst. Agric. 
(1681) 224 If May and June prove wet Months, it causes a Frimm and Frothy Grass. 1712 MORTON Northamptonshire 51 The 
fremmest..that is the richest feeding land we have. 1736 W. ELLIS New Exp. Husb. 54 The shorter and younger the grass, the frimmer 
is the Sap. 1747 HOOSON Miner's Dict. Ojb, Potter's Ore..is so frim and fusible that a great deal of this sort is sold. 1750 W. ELLIS 
Mod. Husb. IV. i. 151 A frim growing time. 1888 Sheffield Gloss. s.v., This lettuce is very frim.
   Hence frimness. 
c1714 T. BATES in Athenæum No. 1982 (1865) 535/3 The frimness of the grass. 1736 W. ELLIS New Exp. Husb. 64 We..sow a Mixture of Clover..to allay its Frimness.

I therefore maintain that my transwiki the corrected definition position is the correct one. Nandesuka 13:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I also have no doubt that someone will claim that the OED doesn't say what it says (does anyone besides me have a subscription? I can't be the only one), here's a freely available that provides evidence that I'm not just fabricating the OED text. Here's the early form of the word used in Beowulf (search for "fremu", in context means "excellent" or "lusty" or "vibrant"). I 100% agree that the original definition was idiotic, and should have been replaced. But given that the people that posted it somehow managed to stumble on to a real word that isn't in the wiktionary, I think it would be irresponsible of us not to correct the error and transwiki it to wiktionary. Nandesuka 13:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 02:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

DarkSyde

blogger-cruft. EvilPhoenix talk 00:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 01:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, blogger with no sign of notability. Dcarrano 04:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bloggist vanity. Cnwb 07:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blogger vanity. JamesBurns 09:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity listing. Duckorange 15:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hunnell ball

Delete as neologism. (Neoludism?) FreplySpang (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nnneologism, also unverifiable as it gets 0 Google hits. -Splash 00:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. See WP:WIN drini ☎ 01:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but perhaps it's only because I'm bitter that I just lost to a guy who is ambidextrous? You decide. Sirmob 04:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero Google results indicate game is not-notable. Cnwb 07:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable game. JamesBurns 09:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 No consensus. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

List of big-bust models and performers

• Keep: being the author of the Chaz (model) article, I feel quite strongly about this topic. (And, contrary to the opinion expressed by Flowerparty below, Chaz is indeed quite a notable model in this genre.) I think that this list, as earlier asserted, has the potential to become an important and impactful resource. I admit that this list has quite a number of blank spots, but these blanks can be addressed, and, indeed, are being addressed. Personally, I would have filled most (if not all) of the blank spots a long time ago, but my notebook computer, with a lot of relevant information on this topic, is currently in the repair shop. I pledge that just as soon as it is back in my hand, I will at least put up stubs for most (if not all) of the blank spots, and as my leisure time permits, make those stubs more substantial. Also, if I may add, I believe that it is very easy to know who is is or who isn't in the "big bust" genre or not, since (besides the evidence of one's own eyes) there are some rather authoritative sources to arbitrate, e.g. magazines such SCORE or Voluptuous. And contrary to R. fiend's assertion, Dolly Parton IS famous for more than her bustline, and she is not on this list because she is not a model, whether big bust, topless, glamour, or whatever. She is primarily a musician, and a darn good one if you ask me :) Jalabi99 18:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This list would seem to represent a valid pornographic sub-genre; there are two main reasons why I think it should be deleted:

• The columns of red links are inviting dozens of articles for complete non-notables such as Chantal and Chaz (model) (and probably others) which are in turn clogging up vfd.
• Who defines which actors have large breasts anyway? Do those listed condsider themselves big-bust models and performers? Chantal doesn't look particularly remarkable in this department, for instance.

The second point doesn't mean the genre can't be discussed in general terms, so I propose an article be created at big-bust pornography or possibly big-breast pornography. Flowerparty 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article has the potential as a important and impactful resource. A wealth of knowledge.

• Above vote by 68.110.68.29 (talk · contribs)

• Delete I think adding a category tag into the already existing entries would be much better. This kind of lists are just invitations to get tons of microstubs some of which will get expanded (most likely the ones that already are) and the majority will fade into oblivion. drini ☎ 01:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Unneeded and not NPOV.n MicroFeet 18:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV and we had a discussion about a very similarly titled article not long ago, but I don't remember it's name. -Splash 01:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  I'm guessing you refer to the category, which was deleted (see discussion). Flowerparty 01:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  That would be the one, yes, thank you. -Splash 05:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Come on people, don't be a bunch of prudes. -- Crevaner 02:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we already have a breast fetishism article for people who seek info about this porno genre. The actresses themselves are very transitory and interchangeable; basically, the point is the boobs and we have an article on that. (A short article, BTW, to which a list of independently notable big-busted models could be added.) Dcarrano 04:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Develop. Not too encyclopedic in its current form. Problem lies in the lack of a consensus as to what the criteria of a "big-bust" is. The term is almost a weasel term in itself. Were it more specific, I would be more likely to vote to keep it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The self-mutilation which most of these women have performed is not to be encouraged and is (to me) repulsive rather than erotic. -- RHaworth 06:46, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
• Keep. Those concerned at the number of model listings "clogging up vfd" can either nominate fewer models or remove redlinks, according to taste. On the subject of which models have big breasts, I'd suggest that this can be ascertained by visual examination. Chaz has enormous breasts, Chantal's are not really that big (and more to the point she doesn't seem to have much of a public profile). Normal editing and reference to verifiable sources (Scoreland, Voluptuous, etc) can settle any disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, visual examination is not enough. We need to have numbers and something much more tangible than something influenced by POV -- and it doesn't help any that a bulk of the online references provide, through no fault of their own, misleading measurements. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 12:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Complete poppycock. The size of the breasts is immaterial; the visual effect and the purpose for which they are displayed provides ample context. Uncle G's refutation also misses the point. A list of small people would probably be unencyclopedic but a list of circus midgets would not. A list of hirsute women would probably be unencyclopedic but a list of bearded ladies would not. Similarly, a list of big boob models is encyclopedic because there are external criteria that can be used. A big boob model is a woman who models for pornographic or glamor pictures and for whom a selling point of her pictures is the display of her boobs in such a manner as to emphasize and celebrate their size. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. The only "external criteria" cited here so far have been your personal opinion as to what constitutes "enormous breasts" and "not really that big". There has been a marked failure here to produce concrete NPOV criteria. At least you're trying to come up with one now (which rather belies any assertion that I missed the point); but note that what you've said above is not what the article says, and note that the purported criterion that you've just invented here doesn't appear to actually exclude anybody, since pretty much all (female) pornographic models display their breasts in order to celebrate them, and once again doesn't actually define what a "big-bust model" is in a concrete and NPOV manner. Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Your argument seems to have been constructed in ignorance of the existence of big boob pornography as a genre. It's very easy to tell if someone is a big boob model. She has big boobs. If there's any doubt you ask if she's appeared ina big boob magazine. We don't need any stronger criterion than that. Yes, I think you missed the point, by a mile. It's blatantly factually incorrect to claim that "There has been a marked failure here to produce concrete NPOV criteria." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. On the point that model names are interchangeable and ephemeral, that isn't the case historically. Names such as Kitten Natividad, Chesty Morgan, Mary Waters, and Ushi Digard turn up regularly some decades after their day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Tony Sidaway. JamesBurns 10:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly because it is hard to define reasonable criteria for inclusion. / Alarm 10:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of these people are no more worthy of articles than the members of a "list of Tesco branch managers", so there is no need for a list of them. 82.35.34.11 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as arbitrary list. And come on, people who want pictures of those have the other 90% of the internet to accomodate them :) Radiant_>|< 13:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the only likely place to find encyclopedic coverage of these people. It's troubling that Radiant assumes the only reason users would want to look these people up is to find pictures. Kappa 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony Sidaway --malathion ^talk 14:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tony Sidaway and Kappa. —Markaci 2005-07-18 T 14:54:12 Z
• Delete. PoV and impossible to correct -- what determines "big bust" but an opinion? --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 14:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - for reasons explained for Keeps.--Bhadani 15:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Abstain --Bhadani 19:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• The irony of Tony Sidaway's rationale is that it provides an example of why this list is inherently not from the NPOV and doesn't have a place here. "Chaz has enormous breasts, Chantal's are not really that big." According to what criterion? According solely to Tony Sidaway's personal definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big". As Joe Beaudoin Jr., Blu Aardvark, and Alarm say, there is simply no concrete and NPOV criterion laid out here that defines what a "big-bust model" actually is, and who is and who isn't one. (The suggestion that whether someone is a big-bust model "can be ascertained by visual examination" is, at best, a woolly one.) The same question of the definition of "big-busted" arises here as does for the definition of "fat" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television, and it has not been answered. Therefore, as per Tony Sidaway, Delete. Uncle G 15:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is simply false to say that there are no criterion for who is and is not a big-bust model. This is a specialist field with a small selection of publications and a relatively small number of models who appear in them. A big-bust model isn't just a woman with big boobs who models. If the title bothers you, change it to "Models who appear in big-bust publications" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's pretty clearly true. The article contains no criteria for who is and isn't on the list except to say that it is only for "big-bust" models (without defining what "big-bust" is), and you've produced no criteria so far other than ones based upon your own personal personal definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big", or non-exclusionary ones that simply include every pornographic model whose breasts have ever been displayed at all. This article is currently in exactly the same position as the article at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television is in. Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This list has no function. Do not ask "what's the harm." Ask "what's the use" of this article? First, it is inherently POV and therefore violates the deletion guidelines. Secondly, it comes from someone's hobby and reflects a private interest. Third, it is unreferenced by other articles and ever shall be, most likely. So the fuction is to allow the self-expression of a hobbyist. Sorry, but that's not what encyclopedias are. Geogre 18:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. This may be the biggest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of humanity, but it is still an encyclopedia. It isn't a place for completely subjective comparisons and worthless listings. Besides, I think politicians are performers, and Ted Kennedy has some pretty big man-boobs, so can I include him in the list if kept? --Scimitar ^parley 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although contrary to Geogre's assertion it does serve a purpose: it's an index of lousy articles. There's enough porn spam on ther internet already. (Am I the only one who's at all surprised that there's a pornstar template?) The encyclopedic value of most of the porn stars listed (and they all seem to be porn stars; for Chrissakes Dolly Parton isn't on the list, and she's famous for just 2 things, neither of them singing) is dubious. Most articles don't even give their real names, but some do have their turn-ons on the like. It's basically the makings of a porn fansite, which is fine and all, but not in Wikipedia. I'm all for including porn stars who have reached a level of fame/notoriety that goes beyond having fucked someone while an amateur videographer ran his handi-cam. Most are not at that level though -R. fiend 19:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and add a List of small-bust models and performers - so all will be happy, even the girls with small natural boobs. Greetings MutterErde 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) First candidate ( A Playmate ! ) : [1]
  • That would have the same problem as here. There is no concrete and NPOV definition of "small-bust" any more than there is a concrete and NPOV defintion of "big-bust". Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, As argued by Flowerparty and others this list acts as a catalyst for creation of articles on non-notables. Mark 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not only should this be deleted, but someone needs to go through all the stub pages on non-notable 'actresses' created to remove many of the redlinks and VfD those. Proto t c 15:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'. Most of the internet is porn. It's a huge industry. We should cover it. Those offended by it are welcome not to work in this area. The arguments about the subjectiveness of the title were excellently dismissed by Mr Sidaway. Clearly, if a model appears in big-bust mags or features on big-bust websites, she is a big-bust model. I am thoroughly amused by the notion that we should have a size bar that busts must exceed for inclusion, although I'm not sure how we'd research it, and I thank Uncle G for the smile. Grace Note 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Personally, I'm not offended by pornography. I contriubte to many articles of a pornographic nature myself. While it may be laughable to you, we need to have a criteria that isn't biased. Clearly, a set number (via consensus or a group of valid sources) would remove the bias -- because, right now, this list is extremely biased and a majority of the performers listed there are not-notable. This bias of this list, as it stands, violates the spirit (and probably the letter of) the NPOV guidelines. BTW, the recently created List of small-bust models and performers is horridly POVed -- but it eloquently explains why we need a common criteria for "big-bust" (or "small-bust"). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The arguments were about the subjectiveness of the list inclusion criteria, and far from "excellently" dismissing them, Tony Sidaway merely came up with further subjective definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big" that only served to exemplify the subjectiveness. Your definition is no better, as it simply dodges the question entirely. "a model [who] appears in big-bust mags or features on big-bust websites [...] is a big-bust model" does not provide a concrete and NPOV definition of "big-bust". It merely provides a circular definition. (Ask what a "big-bust mag" or a "big-bust website" is, and the answer will be "one that features big-bust models".)

    We don't keep Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television because we don't have a concrete and NPOV definition of "fat", and circular definitions such as "a fat person on television is a person who has appeared in fat television programs such as Fat Actress" don't cut it. We shouldn't keep this, which apparently amounts to "List of fat people in pornography magazines" and has equally circular definitions, for the same reason. Uncle G 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• weak Keep because I believe some notable models promote themselves as "large-chested", "big-boobed", etc. List would be definable if restricted to these. Xoloz 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sexist. Mandel 12:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Breast size isn't really discussed enough when considering female performers...no, wait... Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete all ill-defined, overly subjective lists. Delete a second time for idiocy. Quale 20:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Anyone find it odd that this vote is so close, but the List of small-bust models and performers is basically unanimous for deletion (admittedly that article is worse, but still)? Is that ugly systemic bias rearing its head again? -R. fiend 22:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: Actually, the List of small-bust models and performers has one vote -- from the creator. Otherwise, I believe one of the reasons that the vote is nearly unanimous is due to the fact that the article is new. Now, the "big-bust" list is older and has been worked on by others, and there is probably a sense of attachment to this article from its contributors. Hence the debate. Just my two cents. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 22:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I did say "basically" unanimous; I do have to wonder about a vote that has the comments "I hate fake tits", but no matter. As for the "people vote keep because they worked on the article" rationale, well, I've seen it before and my response is the same. It seems to make more sense that people work on articles because they think they are worth keeping, not that they think articles are worth keeping because they worked on them. -R. fiend 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep given the number of valid links in the article, the point is moot

• Above vote by 63.202.173.218 (talk · contribs)

• Keep I think this list was very useful, I don't suppose it's easy to understand. But just as people are interested in what happened to mainstream celebrities of the past, people who follow the careers of these models would find it very helpful to have this index handy. Also, I'm not sure that information can be stupid by definition. If it's a genre that exists, doesn't having a reference of it serve the mission of the wikipedia?

• Above vote by 205.188.116.70 (talk · contribs)

• Delete as per Uncle G and others. DES 20:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and, yes, I started the article...) tregoweth 22:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but an eye should be kept on the quality of entries (Kerry Marie currently only a link and photo), so notability can be recognized. 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Semi-encyclopædic. --Matjlav 23:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Simple definition: a model or performer whose principal claim to fame is her "big" bust. We don't need to set a minimum circumference; we just rely on the marketplace. If she's moving lots of copies of Busty, Gent etc., then she obviously has what the average consumer of breast fetishism pornography regards as "big-bust."--Jpbrenna 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Simply because the concept of a "big-bust" performer can be abused does not mean that it is non-notable. As per the anonymous vote (from 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)), we simply must keep an eye on the article so that non-notable performers are not included. jglc | t | c 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A list of performers who have large breasts (with no other criteria) does not strike me as encyclopedic, especially if many of the models have no other notability, and a limitted one at that. Now, if it were a list of performers who are especially notable for having large breasts (e.g. Lolo Ferrari) then I think it would certainly be worth keeping. Without some extra criterion for inclusion, this list could easily include every porn star with breasts over a certain size, and/or every performer to ever be featured in a themed item of media, which strikes me as both un-maintianable, and listcruft. --Icelight 00:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it is a good way to browse pron, it is a vague criterion, prone to abuse and someone can decide to have list of models for every vaguely unique body part. pamri 12:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Scimitar and R. fiend. Basically, it's not encyclopedic and lists too many non-notables. --Courtkittie 05:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very encyclopedic and scientific. ‡ Jarlaxle 21:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Also Strong keep. Some can be edited out, others need additional input, Kitten Natividad is a case in point, as you can't discuss director Russ Meyer without mentioning her. Yes "big-bust" is a slightly vague term, but if it encompasses more than a few, so what? The underlying thread of VFD seems to be a dislike for the topic. There is more info here than on IMDB, which is very handy.

• Above vote by 160.111.254.11 (talk · contribs)

• Delete. Yet another pointless list (agree with all prior comments about it being a very vauge catagorisation)

• Above vote by 203.213.7.132 (talk · contribs)

• Delete Statues of hydrocephalus victims aren't funny. What? Oh... that kind of large bust. Then woefully POV, not useful, and spam magnet. brenneman^(t)(c) 11:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 merge and redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 17:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Grandaddy/Albums

Along with Grandaddy/Singles, Grandaddy/Non-Album Singles and Grandaddy/EPs, no need for seperate articles for these, merge with main Grandaddy article by adding a discography, the same as with all band articles. pomegranate 01:05, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all and direct the responsible party to WP:MOS Flowerparty 01:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all as part of Grandaddy discography. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all per Flowerparty. Dcarrano 04:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Cnwb 07:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I was bold, and merged the content into Grandaddy. I guess the only thing left to do is create redirects to finish the merge process? —Markaci 2005-07-18 T 15:20:59 Z
• Redirect to Grandaddy. There aren't very many albums, after all. Geogre 18:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grandaddy or delete. Very little information left merging. JamesBurns 07:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Restless mania

Delete a nn blog. Gets only 91 unique Google hits, and doesn't even have its own webspace (so no useful Alexa info available). Says it's run by five people for pronouncing their opinions on things. -Splash 01:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete cheap shot to get visitors. drini ☎ 02:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog. Dcarrano 04:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bloggist vanitism. Cnwb 07:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 10:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 16:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to Cannibilism

Delete craziness that probably doesn't make it to patent nonsense, a fact which is, itself, nonsensical. -Splash 01:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I think it's in part a joke. drini ☎ 02:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete meant as an insult and largely copied from existing article "cannibalism" Hamster Sandwich 02:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Are non-admin allowed to vote on policy papers? If so, Delete nonsense. CanadianCaesar 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even while I express the secret wish that an "Eat" template actually existed. Sirmob 04:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless "project page." -- BD2412 ^talk 04:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN it. Cyclone49 05:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. JamesBurns 10:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN mmmmmmm Wikipedians... ~ WCFrancis 12:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN- sorry I am a vegetarian. Ok, I will try to eat vegetarian wikipedians. Volunteers required. --Bhadani 15:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I offer myself as a volunteer. Any taker?--Bhadani 15:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • mmmmmmm Bhadani... --Dmcdevit·t 02:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks and rewrite. Meelar (talk) 15:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a joke? Themindset 16:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, LOL. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 16:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Put on BJAODN MicroFeet 18:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rubbish. Doesn't warrent BJAODN as it makes no sense and is not funny. Delete.--Briangotts 19:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, I find its humor well to my... taste. Dcarrano 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Revolución 00:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Eat. --Dmcdevit·t 07:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• It's funny, but not BJAODN material. Delete. --Titoxd 00:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Already on BJAODN. Del-eat. --Idont Havaname

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Arrowood

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FreplySpang (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• As the only other editor blanked the article after you added the vfd tag, I think it is fairly safe to speedily delete this. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ebarfulate

Delete asburd (proto-?)neologism. It is what it describes. I can't believe I just checked, but it gets 17 unique Google hits. -Splash 01:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete and direct user to [2] for future "contributions" pomegranate 01:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm laughing... I'm laughing out loud... but Wikipedia is not a dictionary.... CanadianCaesar 03:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Are you three mad! I've never seen a article that is a more clear keep BJAODN. I mean really, how could you delete this utterly inappopriate article without leaving some trace behind... Sirmob 03:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 04:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absurd neologism. Cnwb 07:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deletulate. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absurd neologism. Revolución 00:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sue Jones

Delete mother of famous people do not get to upwardly-derive notability. They need to be notable themselves. -Splash 01:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See, I wouldn't have even VfD'ed this, I would have made it a redirect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I mean, a little bit of merge wouldn't hurt with that delete, but I agree with Antaeus Feldspar as well. Sirmob 04:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm...which of the three ways are you voting? -Splash 04:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even the article gives me no indication that anyone would actually look up Sue on her own. Dcarrano 04:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she seems to be related in someway to two different famous people, so someone doing research on either one can look her up -- 24.15.84.34 (talk · contribs)'s four edits are all to the article, this VfD, or Norah Jones.
• Merge any notable information into Norah Jones, but only because Norah's father is notable. Cnwb 07:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, My take is different. I think it is worthwhile to keep since any story on Norah Jones seems to refer to Sue Jones, especially her methods of imparting musicall awareness to Norah at a young age. If we keep it, may be someone else may add more details on that which can be useful to other parents. If you merge, you lose that wonderful possibility. ssinger 07:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • This users 3 edits are all to this VfD.-Splash 13:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up. Some notability. JamesBurns 10:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep having articles like this saves space in the other articles, so they don't have to be clogged with biographical information about parents and siblings and the like. --malathion ^talk 14:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Are we short in space in the Norah Jones article? More importantly, a separate article about a topic implies its seperate encyclopedic note: "making space" doesn't really have any bearing seeing as WP:NOT paper, and all. -Splash 18:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Norah Jones article. Jones' mother is not notable. Nandesuka 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with some formatting changes. To me notability criterion is met, notable because of contribution but may not be in the public eye. A bit of parallel I see is Venus and Serena Williams' father in the Women's tennis world. He is a bit more in the public eye because of media exposure but the real story is how he coached them in an unconventional way. 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC) -- this vote is one of 63.210.102.138 (talk · contribs)'s two edits so far.
• Smerge and redirect to Norah Jones. I don't like the "notability chain rule", as it's neverending. Are we going to include everyone's mom/dad/sister/etc? Besides, this is full of unencyclopedic stuff like she's "described as a kind and helpful person", "On the gossip front...". She'd like Norah to record some standards. Good for her, now why's that here? -R. fiend 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't like the idea of a redirect. Redirecting people to people can easily be problematical. Since I doubt anyone who doesn't already know Sue is Norah's mother will search for this, I'm going to vote to smerge and delete (and quite a slight smerge at that). -R. fiend 18:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If we smerge, we can't delete, I thought? GFDL and all...-Splash 13:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There's a way to do it while preserving the history; though I forget what it is. If it's too much trouble then I'll vote delete. If someone wants to add some of the information back in their own words, I imagine they can do it without violating GFDL and all. I mean, the original contributor just took something he/she read and rephrased it presumably anyway. -R. fiend 14:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I take issue with those arguing notability criteria is passed (see Criteria for inclusion of biographies). These facts should be merged into Norah Jones (where they will have merit, they are important to understand the artist's development).
• Delete not notable on her own. Merge anything worth keeping into her daughter's article. --Etacar11 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge and Delete per Rfiend. Xoloz 04:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mabye if she had six kids as famous as Norah Jones, ala Joseph Jackson, I can't see how she meets any biography criteria otherwise.--nixie 04:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An unencyclopedic, gossipy, mish-mash on an individual of absolutely no note whatsoever. Indrian 17:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It can use some edits to tone down the gossip and make it read better but that kind of stuff takes care of itself over time. She is not a media story like Joseph Jackson but deserves notoriety for a similar reason, a single woman spotting and nurturing a great talent. (Unsigned vote by 193.188.105.22 (talk · contribs))
• Keep. reasonably notable and interesting character. In fact I want to learn more about her 8:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote by 133.41.145.142 (talk · contribs))
• Delete. Not interesting enough for an encyclopedic entry. Nothing notable except being the mother of a famous person. Maybe a line mentioning that Norah was inspired by her mother's love of Billie Holiday can be included in Norah Jones --Fitful 21:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't understand why the big opposition to keeping it. It is probably in the grey area but let us err on the side of keeping it. The content definitely needs improvement. - occasional visitor 06:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with edits to the content. In the few minutes I thought about it, I went back andd forth a bit but eventually decided to vote to keep. My hope is the community will beef up the content over time shedding more light on the mother's influence on the talent. I learnt about Joseph Jackson after seeing it mentioned here and it was informative. So someone else might find information about this parent useful. Jim Pulaski 04:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Storm Poorun

Delete nn non-elected (i.e. not a Member of Parliament, or any other assembly) member of a minority (but not unpopular) UK political party. His page on their website] doesn't say he is the party spokesperson, so don't be mislead by that claim. -Splash 01:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree, I understand that he is party spokesperson. In any event, he is known publicly via national television and radio media in England, as he has had a profile as an environmental protestor, and has appeared in newspapers, and on radio and television shows in relation to environmental issues. - Brett Collins 02:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You'll have to prove those claims. The first three pages of Google hits certainly don't appear to mention any media attention at all. The very first Google is a Guardian bio-tub because he was a candidate for election earlier this year. He didn't win, however. -Splash 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Clearly he did not win as an MP, however, I stick by my last post. On looking at Google, I disagree with you, the first three pages for 'poorun' (depending how many results per page you set!) include articles in south london press and other local/regional papers, and the observer newspaper. I've personally seen him on the politics show (TV), and several times have heard him talking on Radio 4 programmes (BBC, discussing citizenship, genetically modified foods, and development in the Peak District National Park). Also, I'm sure he is still a spokesperson for the Green Party. What do others think? - Brett Collins 02:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep One more thing: the agreed wiki guidelines on 'notability' state that the following should be kept (amongst many others): - Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage / Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events / Alternative tests: Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include: The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included./ Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a hideous stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? / Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? / All of these apply, so I would argue that the subject is at least notable.

• We're all well aware of what the guidelines say. Show me links here to the evidence of "signifcant" local media coverage that I must have missed, and all will be settled. -Splash 03:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't doubt your awareness of the guidelines, but I still feel its important to point them out, as there is no reason for us to make any assumptions of awareness of guidelines, or otherwise, by other readers of, or contributors to, this discussion. I will provide evidential links as requested, at some point later, right now I'm in dire need of sleep! Check back sometime later today... - Brett Collins 03:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As written, does not establish notability. Even the "Olan Trust", by its webpage's own admission, will not be functioning for another couple of months. (And will still not be notable imediately upon its birth.) --Icelight 16:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd remind you of the guidelines - about a local figure who receives significant media coverage being notable (I will post some links to media coverage later when I have a chance); I also find it strange that you don't think a national spokesperson for the fourth largest party (in terms of both seats and overall number of votes) in England Wales is not 'more notable than the average college professor'! Could one of you answer that? Surely he is 'a lot' more notable than the average college professor, and therefore merits at least an entry (see my previous post above setting out the current guidelines on what is 'notable'). Certainly I've seen politicians of lesser or equivalent standing undeleted, e.g. [Brian Nugent],[Antonia Bance],[Jason Crummey] - Brett Collins 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional Delete. Unelected, and not notable. If significant media coverage can be shown, I will consider changing my vote. --Scimitar ^parley 19:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional Delete per Scimitar, where are you Brett Collins? Sirmob 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_>|< 10:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Xoloz 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• KeepComment Here are a few articles I found, (but there's obviously more which are only available on paper - Southwark News, South London Press, Western Mail, Hastings Argus) {and he has appeared on BBC television news (regional and national) in relation to court appearances in the European Court and the High Court}: [South London Press];[Richmond and Twickenham Times];[MEPs Office];[Red Pepper Magazine];[Guardian];[GreenWorld];[Eastbourne Guardian];[Edgeware Times];[Local London];[South London Press] - Brett Collins 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but those are all just one sentence mentions for quotes. There are lots of activists and lots of them acquire some media coverage by standing for election. Unfortunately, he's not a spokesperson for the party, hasn't done anything notable and didn't win an election. He's a great guy I'm sure, but he is still not notable. There are also plenty of lawyery types out there, and almost all of them are non-notable too, though I struggle to work out if he's even a lawyer or whether he just sits in the courtroom with them. -Splash 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Kibitz

Delete vanity from nn self-confessed hackers. Their crowing glory, Kibitz "Lionhead Studios" scores...wait for it...5 Google hits, none of which are media. -Splash 01:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Splash . Dcarrano 04:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. H4x0r vanity. Cnwb 07:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable hacker vanity. JamesBurns 10:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or possibly redirect to Kibbutz as improbable misspelling) Dystopos 22:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Blum

Delete non-notable vanity. Without wishing her to feel second rate, she can have an article when she's famous. -Splash 02:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please do not Delete While it might seem "vain" to some, she has won Lincoln Douglas debate in a highschool league and is famous within the homeschool debate community.
• Please do not Delete Entry expanded to include some of her numerous awards. Also, it is not vanity because Rachel did not write it.
  • Within the context of Wikipedia deletion debates, WP:VAIN has a particular meaning which you might find useful. DS 14:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a vanity page. Joyous (talk) 02:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Borisblue 02:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Gwk 03:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably only known in her own suburb and school, if that. Harro5 03:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Splash Hamster Sandwich 04:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Extra specially fantastically deletable vanity. -EDM 04:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As many who have done quite well in high school have learned, high school achievements alone will be quite difficult to use to establish notability in Wikipedia or in the real world, and I do think the non-notable issue is more important here than vanity. Sirmob 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Extemporaneous, impromptu delete. Dcarrano 04:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not worth mentioning. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Cnwb 07:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity and as non-notable. (Unsigned vote by Briangotts)
• Delete nn high school vanity. --Etacar11 23:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an encyclopaedia, people, not a yearbook. Once she's notable, she'll get her article. --Titoxd 01:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD✉ 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

George Reyes

Confused vanity page - no evidence of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Jayig. It looks like a C.V. for a computer salesperson. Hamster Sandwich 02:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there an established guideline for inclusion of executives? WP:BIO does not specify one way or the other. Google and Sun Microsystems are obviously notable companies, but does that make their CFO notable? - Thatdog 02:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Remove from VfD and mark as a copyvio, it's from here CanadianCaesar 03:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now tagged it as a copyvio CanadianCaesar 04:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Holy Crap that's a big tag! For what it's worth, if it wasn't a copyvio I'd say it was quite possibly notable. Sirmob 04:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stub. A CFO at extremely-notable Google is probably above the bar of notability set by Vfd precedent (if not by WP:BIO guidelines). Dystopos 22:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. To formalize the comment above, Keep per Dystopos Sirmob 19:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 23:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Margo

Delete, non-notable family member of someone possibly notable. Google hits are only 260, and they don't immediately reveal that she has notability in her own right. I will say in advance that I could be wrong on this one, but that's what VfD is for. -Splash 02:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • In light of better research, I'll go for a weak keep because collecting a bunch of non-notable appearances doesn't really make you very notable, IMO. -Splash 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. IMDB says she appeared in 15 movies and nearly as many television productions. She was probably a minor player. The article is however poorly written and has superfluous content. Maybe cleaned up and somehow merged with either the "Eddie Albert" or "Xavier Cugat" articles. See a recent edit I applied to the article. Hamster Sandwich 02:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As usual someone jumps the gun at posting articles for deletion. Dwain 02:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I made pretty plain in my nomination that I could be wrong. There's really no need for that kind of reaction. -Splash 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think my reaction was justified in that the article was posted for about 45 seconds before it was nominated for deletion. Where is the need for speed in posting something for deletion? Dwain 16:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't seem to be an article that promotes a high school student not worth mentioning. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. Cnwb 07:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Is this the only "Margo" in the world? I think we need a disambiguation page, or at least a header, especially as the name's another form of Margot. -R. fiend 19:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest a disambiguity with "Margo Albert", because of the close association of her more famous husband "Eddie Albert". And from there perhaps a link to their actor progeny "Edward Albert" I'm still new and don't know how to do that, yet. Would appreciate some direction and I'd be happy to take a shot at it though. Hamster Sandwich 04:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears notable. JamesBurns 07:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to add a last name (or disambig per Fiend). Radiant_>|< 10:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Since most research would be directed at the actress' career, in my opinion, the heading should relate to her screen name, in the singular. Hamster Sandwich 04:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but maybe it should be moved to Margo (actor). She is a notable actor (great in The Leopard Man) with a following. Why on earth would you delete this and keep the characters of the Donkey Kong universe? Keep... Keep... Keep Steve Eifert
• Move to Margo Albert or Margo (actress), but not simply Margo. Mmmbeer 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Olde Stone Brewing Company

Delete nn pub. No particular claim to fame, and there are only Google hits because there are a few pubs around the place with the same name. -Splash 02:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 02:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', non-notable local business. Dcarrano 04:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Not very famous, not a big attraction. I'll give a weak delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This page seems like an ad. Little info and mainly just a product list. I compared it to some other brewery articles and found it lacks any real information. Definately not encyclopedic. Hamster Sandwich 07:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Cnwb 07:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. "Only brewing company in Peterborough" attempts to establish notability (since Peterborough, Ontario is notable enough as a city), but I don't think it establishes enough. I'd consider changing my vote if the article states more reasons that this brewery is notable. --Deathphoenix 17:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Doesn't do much to establish notability. I would suppport merging this to some article on the Breweries of Ontario if anyone's up to that.--Pharos 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only brewery in Peterborough, with distribution, would be notable, but the bar for notability (ha! bar!) of a brew pub is much higher. — mendel ☎ 00:26, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 23:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Walking like an Egyptian

looks a lot like original research Borisblue 02:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I went to school with several Egyptians and they all walked in a normal and acceptable fashion. see Ministry of Silly Walks for contrast Hamster Sandwich 02:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move and redirect to Walk like an Egyptian (i.e., the song by the Bangles), and add content about the song itself. On a personal note, I had a massive crush on Vicki Peterson when I was a kid. Microtonal 02:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree completely (the redirect, that is not the crush)Borisblue 04:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Microtonal. I'm onto writing the "Walk Like an Egyptian" article when I get back from work. Apparently, the songwriter Liam Sternberg wrote it after being on a ferry and watching the passengers struggling to keep their balance. The song was their biggest ever reaching #1 in the US and Australia, #3 in the UK see [3]. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to promised Walk Like an Egyptian article. Dcarrano 04:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It is not entirely unreasonable to have an article on the way the conventional way of depicting people on Egyptian reliefs and paintings has been parodied in popular culture. As for "original research", many of the pop culture-related articles on Wikipedia are in fact original research, in the sense that they do not cite reputable academic publications (or even irreputable non-academic publications) on the topic. Is that even possible to avoid, while still covering such areas? Uppland 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. This, of course, isn't much of an article. Perhaps a more general article on Ancient Egypt in popular culture would be more appropriate. For that references could easily be found. But until that is actually written, this one can be moved or redirected, I suppose. Uppland 06:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe we can list this as an unusual article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There is no reason we can't do that. The Walk Like an Egyptian article will stand on its own. In response to Uppland's point, I will cite sources which help confirms verifiability - it is my concern that many of our articles do not outline their sources. My understanding of original research is that it puts forward a new interpretation of events rather than facts or points of view from people with some relevance to the issue. Capitalistroadster 05:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. Uppland 06:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Internally sourced and verifiable, it identitifies a real cultural phenomenon. -Willmcw 06:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• When the song "Walk Like an Egyptian" came out, it prompted fresh discussion of the very point that this article is discussing. This isn't original research, inasmuch as there is a particular manner of locomotion here that has been enacted by the world of entertainment for at least a century. Wilson, Keppel and Betty, an old vaudeville act who performed the Egyptian Sand Dance featuring exactly this method of walking, formed in 1910. This particular mode of walking is not connected with solely the song by The Bangles or a 2004 fashion show (Note the date that the article was written.), and did not even originate with them either. A rename or a merge specifically to that song would be inappropriate. The article is somewhat misleading, and could do with some cleanup. No people have seriously held the belief that Egyptians walked this way. Wilson, Keppel and Betty was a comedy act. Uncle G 09:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Walk Like an Egyptian. JamesBurns 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. I have created an article for Walk like an Egyptian as well. I would like to thank Uncle G for the info about the "Egyptian Sand Dance" which I will add to the song article as the lyrics refer to the old sand dance. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We've divided up the labour. Whilst you've been writing that article, I've actually cleaned this one up somewhat. Uncle G 10:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks Uncle G. Article is now called Walk Like an Egyptian with Walk like an Egyptian as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Hiding talk 13:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Great save. -- Visviva 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 18:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dwstein 18:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no original research on this topic, simply easily documented or commonly known facts. It provides no interpretation or synthesis, but is an interesting topic. I rather think that 'Walk like an Egyptian" should be merged with this more general article on the topic, as that song is obviously derivative on the core idea. Cyferx 19:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: good cleanup, guys. Another example of the VfD process used for good rather than evil. Microtonal ^{(Put your head on my shoulder)} 19:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, the caption under the left-hand picture makes me giggle every time. Microtonal ^{(Put your head on my shoulder)} 19:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Briangotts 19:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Great cleanup. royblumy 03:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I never knew what this phrase meant. I had spent some time looking for it on the web and gave up. And now I found it by accident via the link in The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks. Please, please keep this information. Heiko Evermann 20:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (but remove the sections other than that about the ... actress ...). Eugene van der Pijll 23:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Monique Alexander

Vanity page for a pediatrician. Joyous (talk) 03:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. Gwk 03:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• 14-year-old pediatrician and mother of three. Busy girl, but not too busy to post vanity. Delete hoax -EDM 04:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established CanadianCaesar 04:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, on the one hand Google returns 166,000 hits for "Monique Alexander"... but on the other hand, the first of these is for "Free Pornstar Monique Alexander Galleries," and the rest are pretty much the same. Once this article is gone, I may post an article on the notable porn star by the same name. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added some info on that other Monique Alexander. :-) -- BD2412 ^talk 05:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • What will her patients think?? -EDM 05:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, are you serious about keeping the porno actress? If so, we might as well erase the stuff on the pediatrician, in much the same way Hooley was VfD'd and then kept because it was completely re-written to focus on a completely different subject. CanadianCaesar 05:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, we should have an article on the (ahem) actress, as she does seem notable in her field. I'm reluctant to remove the "pediatrician" info, as it was the basis for this vfd... but it's an obvious hoax, and since it is not an advert, an attack page, or a copyvio, it does no harm for it to remain in the edit history. So, if the VfD goes "delete" as to the original article, we can just keep the replacement (unless folks wish to delete that as well). -- BD2412 ^talk 13:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Needs a bit of a cleanup - I thought the pediatrician and the porn star were the same person. Cnwb 07:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I clarified the distinction. :-D -- BD2412 ^talk 13:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable pediatrian; Keep notable porn star (no offence meant to the pediatrian!) 23skidoo 14:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the porn star. CanadianCaesar 20:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the pediatrician, keep the porn star. Which is always a good way to build a society. Dcarrano 21:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Keep per Dcarrano. I like your thinking. royblumy 03:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the 14 yr old doctor and mother of 3. Keep the porn star I guess. I'm glad I only share my name with a long distance runner... --Etacar11 00:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Split vote: Keep the pr0n actress, Abstain on the pediatrician. JamesBurns 07:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the pediatrician as hoax. Nobody named Monique Alexander holds a medical license in Florida, the state where the pediatrician purportedly lives. See Florida Medical License Search. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 23:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Testmasterz

Advertising. Also duplicated at Test master, Testmaster, Test masters, Testmasters. Joyous (talk) 03:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete all. This is probably vandalism. Gwk 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Barf. Delete all, ads for non-notable company. Dcarrano 04:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Rights of the Lisa Act (Australia)

This act does not appear to exist. The only references in search engines point back to Wikipedia or mirrors. Bollar 03:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A hoax? Gwk 03:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete From the most cursory research on the subject it appears euthanasia laws are determined on a state to state basis in Australia. I found nothing specific to "Lisa", and nothing to indicate there is a national policy on the issue. If there is maybe the article should be expanded and appropriate links included. Hamster Sandwich 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No such act. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was passed in the Northern Territory in 1995 as a Private Members Bill introduced by then Chief Minister Marshall Perron. The Federal Parliament then passed the Voluntary Euthanasia Laws Act authored by Kevin Andrews removing the power from the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory in 1997 - Australian states still have the power to legislate if they wished but none has. No-one would look for the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act under such a name so no need for a redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 04:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Power Rangers --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yellow Ranger

Can you GET any more crufty? After all, the individual yellow rangers do seem to all have their own pages. Dicdef with zero useful information and no possibility for useful expansion. (btw, my vote is redirect as per Omniwolf)--InShaneee 03:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. Perhaps redirect to Power Rangers, otherwise just delete. Sirmob 04:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC) I'll clarify in response to later comments - per Yuckfoo, redirect until someone cares to expand it. Sirmob 03:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power Rangers. Dcarrano 04:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if there is more than one yellow ranger it should list them. Kappa 14:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power Rangers. --malathion ^talk 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, can be expanded like Red Ranger, Blue Ranger, etc. Andros 1337 15:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that those pages duplicate content from the pages they link to. --InShaneee 02:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it doesn't interest me, this definitely interests others. Deleting stuff based on "crufty" as an argument doesn't exactly work for me. Themindset 17:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power Rangers. so should Red Ranger and Blue Ranger --Omniwolf 17:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• redirect this please until it is expanded then we can keep it Yuckfoo 18:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Power Rangers, concur with Omniwolf on all the other coloured Rangers. JamesBurns 07:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (WP:FICT). Radiant_>|< 10:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 Keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Dragon Murder Case

This seems to be a three-line book review by someone who fails to mention the author, date of publishing or any details whatsoever. Unless someone actually wants to expland the article (too often people vote keep and don't care to edit the subject), this should be deleted. Harro5 03:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands, unsalvageable POV CanadianCaesar 04:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - woah, this guy has done a bunch of POV-work on a number of S. S. Van Dine works, see The Benson Murder Case, The Canary Murder Case, and The Greene Murder Case - perhaps an administrator needs to work this our, or could this blanket pov-ing be considered vandalism? Sirmob
  • I'm not admin, but IMO it's not vandalism unless the user means it to be. Of those works, The Benson Murder Case looks fine; others do seem to belong more to amazon.com. CanadianCaesar 04:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup this and all of the other Philo Vance reviews-masquerading-as-articles. Dcarrano 04:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup per Dcarrano. royblumy 03:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 10:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've searched Amazon and found author and date of publication. As it is now it's a book-stub, though original editor's POV need's attention. Mark 22:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup per Dcarrino. Sirmob 03:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup; let it grow Lectonar 09:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that the review is gone CanadianCaesar 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dibyajyoti Deb

No claim of notability (unless being a big fan of the Kentucky Wildcats counts) and only 9 hits. I would have userfied it, but it was created by an anon. Niteowlneils 04:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Niteowlneils NN Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 04:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 05:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity. Cnwb 07:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn grad student vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Woohookitty 14:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Quadro

Appears to be a vanity page about a fake programming language.

I can find no other references about the existence of this language, nor of the language creators mentioned.

The original article submitter included no source for the content, and that person's other contributions on the same day included vandalism: [4] (look at the Bruce Lee and Medicine changes, in particular.)

Also, the programming code samples provided are meaningless. The Java sample is just a braindead hello world program, and the C++ one is comparably braindead (in addition to probably not compiling).

No other articles appear to link to Quadro. Bovineone 07:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I like to do scholarly journal searches for these. The ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems contains 0 results for either "quadro" or "darren davies". Science of Computer Programming contains 0 results for "quadro" or "darren davies". Programming and Computer Software contains... 0 for quadro, 0 for "darren davies", and 0 for "any reason whatsoever to keep this article." If it's not a hoax, it's vanity about somebody's grad school project in computer science. And not even good vanity, seeing as how it doesn't say what university they did it at. The Literate Engineer 05:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, good research by you two. Dcarrano 06:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm always amazed at the lengths that VfD notability is researched. Anyways, with respect to the article, delete. --Titoxd 01:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 redirect. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

ABDL

I made effort to make this NPOV, but it's a how-to/FAQ. There is no content here that is not also in Infantilism. Please look at the talk page for examples of the material I've moved off the main page. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Infantilism Tom k&e 15:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. — RJH 15:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, no merge is nessesary or desired. func(talk) 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• do not delete I think it offers a look at a community rather than a clinical survey as offered in the infantilsm page. Dave
• do not delete The seperation of the two articles allows one to have a clinical veiw while the other has a multiple point of veiw. I would also like to note that the ABDL article has sections dealing in more practical matters, something that infantilism does not. There were complaints about how the Infantilism article was writen before and there was some agreement that the seperation of the articles would cut down on article size and keep the point of veiw consistant for both articles.
  (EDIT: Signed for the sake of others) -- OrbitOne

(Unsigned edit by 80.62.170.94 - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC) )

• do not delete Though addressing the same general topic, the two articles address it from two very different places. Like the above voter said, Infantilism is more of a clinical exploration and ABDL is more from the point of view of people practicing it. If there is to be a re-direct, it should be merged instead of just deleted. But seeing as they originated as one article before being split due to article length, re-merging them wouldn't make much sense.
  

(Unsigned edit by Icarus3 - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC) )

• do not delete This is an article on a community, while Infantilism is an article on the fetish that this community shares - related yes, but not at all the same thing. - Pacula 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Gamaliel 06:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Jason Hewitt

The subject is supposedely a "well-known" philanthropist who suffers from a micropenis condition and runs a foundation to address it. Needless to say, Google brings up zero hits for ["Jason Hewitt" micropenis].[5]. On that basis I believe this is an unverifiable hoax. Willmcw 05:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax/attack page. Dcarrano 06:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonverifiable attack page on non-notable person. Capitalistroadster

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Kirdag

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 06:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

- not very notable or informative. --Sgkay 10:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Arif Salih Kirdag seems to have been the leader of a political party in Cyprus in the mid-90s. That's the prevalent common thread in my Google results for "kirdag turkey". While Arif Salih Kirdag should get an article on account of that, I don't know what bearing, if any, that has on the outcome of this VFD. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable POV genealogy. JamesBurns 10:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, "very short article providing little or no context." (WP:CSD) Dcarrano 15:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Kismet H.C.

I'm reopening this VfD because the previous one only got two votes, ending in no consesnus. But as far I can tell, the objection stands. I can find no evidence of meeting any of the WP:MUSIC guidelines. They are not on Allmusic, but after some more searching on Google I can find only one self released CD [6]. Looks to me like non-notable band vanity (check out the pre-cleaned-up version). Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 10:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 16:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns. Vegaswikian 05:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Alexander von thurn taxis

The royal family is notable - (ill formed links in List of entities that have issued postage stamps). This squabble among minor members of the family about the position of von is definitely non-notable. -- RHaworth 06:37, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

• Delete The family is notable but this page is pretty much a vanity piece. Any information here could be added (in an amended form) to the "von Thurn und Taxis" article. However since they are filthy rich people they can pay someone to do it for them. Hamster Sandwich 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thurn and Taxis. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 10:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lectonar 11:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, person's existence is unverifiable and no claim to notability asserted in any event. Dcarrano 16:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 03:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, content is apparently nonsense. Martg76 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Post to Post AM

This site was created as a plug for a new discussion forum dedicated to a radio show, Coast to Coast AM. Aside from POV wording, it featured unsubstantiated claims that it was related to a previous, official forum though it appears to have simply co-opted the name. It was created in April and has been pretty desolate, despite it's creator spamming Usenet repeatedly. Does not warrant a Wikipedia article, IMHO, and the original Art Bell message board was simply titled 'Post to Post' (no "AM"). Yesitis 06:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Where'd the text go? Dcarrano 16:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It was all removed, (in two stages by Yesitis prior to the VfD tag. However, a nice anon IP adress has replaced the text. Still, I do not believe that either of the incarnations (the original, about a forum, or the second, about a two week old webpage) are notably enough to warant a page. Delete --Icelight 16:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Delete, non-notable forum. Dcarrano 16:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above royblumy 03:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Grutness...wha? 08:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Boxhouse

Twelve word orphaned dead-end stub about a town, that doesn't give any indication of where it is. Googling Boxhouse + town gives 34 hits, none of which are about a town called Boxhouse. Unless someone can find out enough to expand this, it should go behind the door with the wardrobe to be sneaked out in the morning (bonus points for spotting that reference!). Grutness...wha? 06:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I too failed to find any relevant information. --Bhadani 15:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The user (and others around 65.54.97.XXX) is a vandal. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. r3m0t ^talk 10:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Knox (Animator)

This was never listed, doing so now. --Dmcdevit·t 06:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the guy only gets two google hits and the original article was highly POV. - FrancisTyers 09:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - FrancisTyers 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and article has improved.
• Yeah. I agree. With that guy /\. --VolatileChemical 8 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
• Keep it. Knox rox my sox. He's quite good.
• Comment I fixed a typo on the page while i was reading it. It would be helpful if there was some indication that Knox's work was shown to the general public and not merely a cadre of his/her followers. Hamster Sandwich 07:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to even have an IMDB entry, which is pretty much the bare-minimum criteria for filmmakers and such. Also, his website hovers around the 100,000 mark on Alexa, (which is low for someone whose claim to fame is primarily internet-based) so he's not going to squeak by based on "but he's really famous online, really!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. Dcarrano 16:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Extreme vanity. Themindset 17:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Nandesuka 18:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. --Scimitar ^parley 19:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN/Vanity. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn animator vanity. --Etacar11 00:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with starblind.Hamster Sandwich 04:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.

Unsigned vote by 65.80.168.47. - FrancisTyers 10:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 00:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Koitsu

Just listing this here. As an aside, this appears to be related to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aitsu. --Dmcdevit·t 07:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

• Delete non notable cardcruft. JamesBurns 10:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to coitus. Or better, delete.  Grue  20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable card. Riddle | Talk 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Kurt Schreckling

Never listed. --Dmcdevit·t 07:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I just found out who Kurt Schreckling is, he's a guy that built a jet engine using a wooden(!) compressor and a gas turbine made out of sheet metal, cut and then bent with pliers. He then flew a model aircraft with the engine. Yowwwww; respect! I don't think the article should be deleted; I think it needs to be expanded. So I vote no! WolfKeeper 21:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this were a poet who had invented a new lyrical form that was not widely used but was as unknown as Schreckling, we'd delete him in a second. Wikipedia sometimes has a tendency to give more slack to techs than to humanities types. For consistency, I'd say delete. Nandesuka 17:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, pioneering home-constructed turbojet engines for model aircrafts is certainly noteworthty for inclusion in my book, especially when it's referenced with an appropriate source. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep borderline notable. royblumy 03:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Scraping the bottom limits of notability. JamesBurns 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published author if nothing else. Radiant_>|< 10:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but this is stretching it. --Titoxd 01:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems noteworthy, although it should be expanded. Binadot 03:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy is cool it is really a begning for a lot of enthusiasts like me. please keep it

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete and redirect. humble'fool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ladette

Delete: Just a definition and I would say less accurate than the Wiktionary definition. (preceding unsigned comment by 80.5.160.6 16:01, June 12, 2005 UTC)

• Listing this old vfd that was never put in the logs. Incidentally I concur (actually the nominator was too kind about the definition, it's a lot worse than "less accurate"), delete. --Dmcdevit·t 07:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page. JamesBurns 10:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, (bad) dicdef. Dcarrano 16:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to lad culture (which really needs expanding, btw). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Laichzeit

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a lyrics databse. --Der Sporkmeister 29 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)
• Delete - It's not even English.. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• It's a Copyvio. Uncle G 11:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy copyvio. --malathion ^talk 14:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Smarvin'

99% sure it's a hoax. No inbound or outbound links. Google hits for it appear to be email address forms of abbreviated names ("S. Marvin"). It appears to have been blanked by either a vandal or a user unfamiliar with the VFD process. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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, I guess. It was red when I got here. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chet rothberg

Genealogy does not assert notability, nor does Google. See WP:NOT. --Viriditas | Talk 08:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 speedy, it looks like. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Matthew strawbridge

Non-notable. Vanity page. KeithD 08:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hogwarts headache

This page refers to a term that appeared once in a medical journal (in the form of a bad joke). This article has no potential to be merged with another article, and has no potential for expansion. As such, I move for article deletion. --jonasaurus 08:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, amusing little vignette. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; Wikipedia does seem to be a repository for trivial but amusing bits of contemporary popular culture, which is fine with me. Antandrus (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting article. JamesBurns 07:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it can't be expanded, it gives some insight into the kind of cultural phenomenon the Harry Potter books are, and the many implications and ramifications of it.
• Redirect to Harry Potter, where a subsection can be written. This thing doesn't need its own article. Binadot 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mildly amusing rubbish. Indrian 17:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above. --Oldak Quill 08:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per binadot Hilarious, but unencyclopedic vignette. Circeus 14:24, 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 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 speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Jesse Alexander Trevino

Non-notable. Vanity page. KeithD 08:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Delete - NN JoJan 08:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied no significant content. Rich Farmbrough 10:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesse hand

Notability not established. No inbound links. Possible vanity, with the Google hits pertaining to a book: Gun of Jesse Hand by one Lewis B. Patten (both red links I see) apparently coincidental. (I nominated this for VFD after reverting an instance of vandalism by blanking.) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with freakofnurture.Hamster Sandwich 09:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 10:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Freakofnurture. Dcarrano 16:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Technology in educational administration

This appears to be some sort of mission statement or something; it's pretty clearly not something that belongs here. 148.78.243.51 08:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not remotely encyclopedic. Hamster Sandwich 09:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This contains virtually no solid information. Joyous (talk) 15:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV essay, non-encyclopedic. Dcarrano 16:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sdorws

I'm not sure about this one. Looks like a possible neologism. It needs some work, in any case. 148.78.243.51 08:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete nonsense. Appears to have tried spelling "swords" backwards. Unsuccessfully I might add.Hamster Sandwich 09:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a neologism or hoax to me, too. Interestingly, Sdrows (which would be a more sensible title, being word with an S on either end) returns quite a few hits (I believe that backwards sites are a way of beating news-site censorship in countries like China). But as for the current article, I'd suggest that the writer of it needs to learn how to use English forwards before trying anything more adventurous. "Oppersite"? "catched on"? Grutness...wha? 09:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gturenss. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Writing a word backwards creates a word with the opposite meaning? Roger, that. Peek. Uncle G 11:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per ssenturG. Dcarrano 16:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Woohookitty 08:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Toad Killing Spree

NN flash animation. NSR (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. KeithD 09:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN vanity of a minor animation.Hamster Sandwich 09:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable flash. JamesBurns 10:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Exploding toad. the wub "?/!" 12:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 16:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: I have speedily deleted this article. —Stormie 09:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

LaGrotta

Some of the most blatant vanity I've ever seen. Google shows no notable programmer with this name. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 09:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Tany Yos Yama

Appears to be a vanity page of a non-notable artist —Stormie 09:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 10:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 0 non-WP mirror Google hits, notability is unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you search for "Joseph Tany" you'll find a few links, but they're basically his own web page and a listing he's added to a few other art directory type sites. —Stormie 22:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Stormie. StopTheFiling 22:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rampant nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 00:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 redirect to European exploration of Australia. Dmcdevit·t 03:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese Discovery of Australia

Its useful contents have already been merged (or rewritten) to European exploration of Australia, where discussion on the supposed Portuguese discovery of Australia should take place. In the study of Australian history, the theory of Portuguese discovery is not widely believed, or, for that matter, given much credence. As such, it doesn't necessarily warrant an article of its own, or at least not one as brief and sub-standard as this (its creator has shown no intention of expanding it). This is why it has been merged (in a sense) with the abovementioned article. So, delete. Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to European exploration of Australia as all the useful information has been merged. KeithD 09:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. Delete. The Ogre 12:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Please don't use your POV of this topic as a reason for deletion. Kappa 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If this was directed towards me, I must object. My point-of-view is not the basis for my nomination. If I were truly biased, I would have circumvented community opinion rather than seek consensus (as I'm doing), wouldn't I? If the topic can be explored neutrally and extensively, I am not opposed to it having its own article. As it is, all that can be said has been at European exploration of Australia.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• merge with European exploration of Australia and then redirect. title is inherently non-neutral. clarkk 14:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to European exploration of Australia. --malathion ^talk 14:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to European exploration of Australia to avoid further POV forking. Dcarrano 16:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to European exploration of Australia. Themindset 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/delete, no redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect since the merge is already done.--nixie 23:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per nixie. --bainer (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand- this is a topic studied by Australian high school history students (eg my year 8 son last term), with a view to getting the students to understand and evaluate conflicting source materials. There is some compelling evidence in favour of the Portugese discovery but there are some key facts which highlight why it is very probably not the case. As at this time the merge / rewrite into European exploration of Australia does not do the topic justice, in particular missing out on the Dieppe Maps. When my son started this topic, I came to Wikipedia and was dissappointed at the paucity of material here and in particular the lack of reference to these maps.--AYArktos 02:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ... I originally thought "delete/merge" but I just went and played with it a bit and I'm happier now. I think it should remain as a discussion of the theory and its various views and counter-views, while European exploration just mentions the subject among other possible early European sightings. --Skud 03:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, as per AYArktos. JamesBurns 07:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Radiant_>|< 10:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Ambi 12:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia:No original research (offical policy) states: "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere". The topic of this article is an historical theory that is much published elsewhere - even in high school materials!--AYArktos 00:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as merged. Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Blubblub317

Not notable brenneman^(t)(c) 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete read entry and agree with above. not yet notable. To be fair, neopets is somewhat out of my realm. maybe i'm missing something.Hamster Sandwich 10:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just in case anyone gets confused: "The Neopian Times" is an online newsletter from a web game/community website, not a real newspaper. I won't say anything about the notability of this kid (he's only 12, no reason to hurt any feelings), but given that the article is written by a user named Blubblub317, it's definitely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 15:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, doesn't help that author blanked page (then again, he's 12).
• Delete, unlikely that anyone would research this entry unless specifically told to look for it here. --Evmore 20:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if he doesnt Merge it, this is vanity and nn UnitedRock55

StopTheFiling 23:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say that Blub did not write this himself (Arti)

• Delete. Not notable --Sleepyhead81 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

ID eNTITY

This article was speedy deleted as nonsense, but was undeleted after discussion at WP:VFU. This appears to be some sort of cartoon. I myself am unsure of whether this cartoon is notable so no vote. If kept the article will need some wikifikation/cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an internationally published graphic novel. The article needs work, but it's a legitimate stub, mistaken for "nonsense" by Hedley (who subsequently voted for its undeletion). Please see the VfU and my discussion with Hedley for more details. —Lifeisunfair 12:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Lifeisunfair. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I already said I'd fix it up and such... I'm planning on doing it when I get back home from Connecticut on Friday of next week. Solomaxwell 23:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

PSNA College of Engineering and Technology

An article to promote a business apparently written by someone with vested interest Ajithkumar 11:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments only, no vote - several articles pertaining to schools and colleges exist in wikipedia, and I think any exception for this article is not required to the extent of a plain "delete". The contents require modification. I will change my vote to "Keep", if blatant promotional style of the content is suitably modified.--Bhadani 14:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if the article is not cleaned up or notability established, otherwise, Keep. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 14:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Needs cleanup, not deletion. — RJH 15:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup to remove advertising tone. Dcarrano 16:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep per my edits. royblumy 03:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per last edits. But do we need the list of Directors and Library Assistants? Vegaswikian 05:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 07:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Bosh

Neologism or vanity. Or simply nonsense? At least non-understandable - and something "indefinable" has no place in a encyaclopedia. andy 11:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Surely it is vain to say a word cannont be defined. "Bosh" is commenly used britsh slang and it has the right to a definition. Who are you to question this? dan
  • This user has so far only edited Bosh and this VFD, with a total of 7 edits at time of count - User:Morwen
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, User:B0sh. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Im not saying wikipedia is a dictionary, true bosh has been defined, by we are also trying to communicate it place in society, and that it is part of the make-up of uk lifedan
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.7 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2005 UTC
• Very Weak Keep but only after wiping everything there from the face of wikipedia and salting the earth. It does in fact appear that "bosh" is a bit of English slang here's the definition. It also does not appear to be very "neo", purportedly used since 1834, according to this. And as both of the image links at the bottom of the page may indicate, of some provenance in graffiti circles. That noted, the number one google hit [7] for "bosh graffiti" is talking about a graffiti artist with the tag "bosh". If there is more demonstration of its relevance, I'd be happier. brenneman^(t)(c) 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • UrbanDictionary is an unreliable source, by the way. Uncle G 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to fiddle, which it's a Romany word for. Just like in the old song,: "Can you kil the bosh?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to) have dictionary definitions, so it's not that we don't like "bosh" in particular. Delete. Morwen - Talk 12:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Bosh is a term in common usage throughout the UK, especially the North East of England, so it's place in Wikipedia is only right and proper. Andy
  • This is this user's first and (so far) only edit - User:Morwen
• Whilst there are secondary exclamatory uses of "bosh!", albeit not as described here, it's primary sense (ironically, given Ahoerstemeier's question above) is indeed synonymous with nonsense, as per the Book of Bosh (a re-titling of Edward Lear's Book of Nonsense), for example. Aaron Brenneman is right about salting the Earth. However, my vote is the same as it was in March. Revert. Uncle G 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Dcarrano has made the very good point that this is also a surname. I therefore change my vote to Keep if rewritten as a conventional name disambiguation article (with the normal interwiki links to both Wiktionary articles) disambiguating Chris Bosh and nonsense. Uncle G 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad dicdef Dunc|☺ 15:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Keep the dab page. Dunc|☺ 21:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• How can you call for deletion of something you blatantly do not understand. Bosh is a multi-faceted term, synonymous with the student community of the England. It is not only a positive expression, but an outlook on life. Andy
  • Users 2nd vote on this topic. You can only vote once! - User:Morwen
  • This is pretty clearly a comment. You can comment all you like! (But it's good form to start with the word "comment".) - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a comment now Check the edit history. Morwen - Talk 06:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't throw a hissy-fit about it Morwen. Andy
  • Redirect per Dcarrano. royblumy 02:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig, because of the multi-use of the word, as per Dcrrano. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• It is certainly not "nonsense", but i see there is some grounds from disambig
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.7 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2005 UTC
• Keep !!!! Just because the Deleters have not yet understood or participated on a conversation on which the word is used, does not give them the right to kill it prematurely. The definition according to the creators was given, the word usage is clear, examples of said usage are also given, and the promise that the word could and is spreading rapidly among users is clearly shown! what else is expected? it is not a random, non-sensical word! it has a cult following 5 years old and deserves a chance. BOSH! (MIMI13)
  • Mimi13 (talk · contribs) - potential sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 19:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Surely simply saying "User's first edit" is a better demonstration of faith? - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The definition according to the creators was given, [...] and the promise that the word could [...] spreading rapidly among users is clearly shown! — In other words, this is original research, an invention made of whole cloth, in violation of Wikipedia:no original research policy, that a group of students is attempting to use Wikipedia to spread, in violation of the Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a word in BE e.g. "bosh! - job done", however the ultrarubbish that is in this is utterly deletable. -Splash 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's one of the secondary uses that I was thinking of. I've looked for an etymology for it, to put into Wiktionary:bosh, but haven't yet found one. Uncle G 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nor me. It's not among the 8 definitions the OED gives, either, which was disappointing. -Splash 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • That's yet further incentive for Wiktionary to have it. ☺ Uncle G 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article as written is part nonsense, part hoax. Since "bosh" is a word, the article could in theory be rewritten, but even then it would still be a dicdef, and so would belong in Wiktionary, not here. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have read Uncle G's rewrite as a disambig page, but although the disambig is a lot better than it was before, but I still don't think it's necessary. I now vote redirect to Nonsense, where there can be a little note at the top saying "'Bosh' redirects here; for the basketball player see Chris Bosh." --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable slang dicdef. JamesBurns 07:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - People wishing to dismiss 'Bosh' as a meer dictionary definition are both missing the point and are out of touch with the popular culture of today. Bosh represents a way of life to many people, it is the core of a belief system and deserves to be documented as such!Aidan
  • User's first edit. User's second edit was to vandalise my userpage, with a link to a forum post inciting such actions. Morwen - Talk 08:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - How can people like Morwen dismiss this phrase, she is obviously a complete twat and doesn't understand the true meaning of the word. John
  • User's first edit. Morwen - Talk 09:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• If bullshit is allowed in a definition so is bosh, bosh is much more than bullshit, it is an attitude,an expression, a way of life, where as bullshit as it says in the definition is "nonsense". Which all u have been labeling bosh which and saying it does not deserve a definition. If bosh should be removed so should bullshit dan
  • it is an attitude,an expression, a way of life — You've cited no sources that would allow readers to verify that. There are no sources to be cited. That assertion is pure rubbish. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• Dcarrano and royblumy have mentioned a surname redirect. Zscout370, 62.252.0.7, and I have in turn suggested a disambiguation. No-one has cited sources for the article content as it stood, with Mimi13 pretty much telling us outright that it was original research. I've therefore Rewritten the article as a name disambiguation. Uncle G 10:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • B0sh (talk · contribs) is reverting to xyr own version. here's the rewrite. Uncle G 10:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig as per Uncle G. Without any solid evidence of a lifestyle type word, it is merely a dicdef/slang. The graffiti, I believe is only referring to its dicdef of nonsense, see Wiktionary:bosh, and it has no encyclopedic value otherwise. Btw Uncle G, bosh is also a program bosh. ∞Who?¿? 11:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep — it's an improvement, but there's not all that much of note there. But something is better than nothing. However, I've removed Bush from see also - it has no more to do with Bosh than do Bash, Bish, Besh, or Bghjhsh. -Splash 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the improvement. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Uncle G improvements. royblumy 21:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite/disambig. Xoloz 04:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why oh why would you rather have the definition of a surname (this is an Encyclopedia, not a list of surnames) over the perfectly valid definition of Bosh, which is a widely used term and an integral part of modern British youth culture. I fear our identity is being repressed by people who would rather see the surname of an American basketball player over something they do not understand.Andy
  • It's not the definition of a surname. That is happily sitting in Wiktionary:Bosh. This form of article is a name disambiguation. It is a navigational aid, not a definition. People with the family name Bosh can be commonly referred to by that family name alone. (e.g. "Bosh, Bowen named players of the week.") Name disambiguation articles list all of the encyclopaedia articles that would otherwise, because of that common form of reference, have a redirect from the family name. Uncle G 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The actual article as written, The rewrite is fine, but it completely ignores the original definition of BOSH (yes, definition, because a definition was clearly given), If is only as a supplementary aid,ok, but emphasis should be given to the word first defined and which created all this commotion in the first place, Isnt the main purpose of this Wikipedia to introduce readers to words and definitions they are not familiar with or have heard in passing and would like more information on?? I have personally seen the word in its original context and i live thousands of miles away from its birth place, I actually came to this Wikipedia to find out more about it and was satisfied with its definition, What are future readers going to do when the word goes global and a suitable and original definition is needed? Many words have started their careers this way, deleting it now would be the equivalent of deleting "cool" in the 1940 or "phat" in the 1990's, Sure there are other definitions for it and they may seem non-sensical to first readers, but they mean something to many and eventually will be vindicated. Not knowing the word is not a valid excuse to delete it, Now you know it, use it, live it and leave it alone, MIMI13 (and no, im not a sockpuppet and yes, it is my first edit)
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 July 2005 actually this user's 8th edit, and moreover this user's 2nd vote in this discussion
  • the main purpose of this Wikipedia to introduce readers to words and definitions, no: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As for the stuff given in the article, it's just so much nonsense. It most certainly wasn't invented in the year 2000, it's been around vastly longer than that. The list of names at the bottom? I can barely make sense of what it's supposed to be a list of let alone why I'd be interested in them. The rewritten article, however, which the author insists on dismissing, actually tells me something verifiable (which this version does not; prove the claims in article). -Splash 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• keepI fail to see how Chris Bosh has a greater right in an entry under bosh than "bosh" does. Sure he can have his own page and the two can co-exist. Its like saying 'bush' cannont deserve a definition because George Bush exists. Also you cannont label something a nonsence just because it is not used by your friends/community/town/nation, bosh exists FACT, it has a right to an explaination of its meaning, an explaination of its place in society and an explaination of its use FACT. Sure the definition is thin on the ground in places, but it will improve if we allow it to mature, by no removing it!!! It deserves to stay if not fully aleast as an disambig. dan
  • This user's 2nd vote.
  • In the rewritten version of the article, "bosh" is covered. It is covered by the link to nonsense, because that is what bosh actually is. Yes, bosh exists. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it has existed for far longer than your article claimed. Please familiarize yourself with the verifiability policy. Your completely unverifiable article, a self-admitted invention of a group of students, has no place here. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. so basically, what Splash is saying is that since the word BOSH already existed before 2000 and is already someone's name, it cannot be possible that a new definition and/or another usage can emerge? maybe the article is nonsense to some people, it seems to me that is simply stating how and why and by whom did this new way of using the word first came to be. New words appear every day, some out of the blue with crazy spellings (D'oh!) , some are simply new twists on existent words (the word "brilliant" actually means reflector of light, and im sure those who refered as something good or amazing as "brilliant" in the early days were laughed at.). Both the surname and the original definition are valid of course, but as you said, this is not a dictionary, so the new usage of the word should be given a proper stage and see what happens. No one person has the right to delete the word because it seems "nonsense " to them and deprive the general public from seeing it. that is bordering censorship. Mimi13
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 July 2005 UTC Who is only allowed to vote once! Dunc|☺ 20:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • i only voted once, the rest was a rebuttal. Mimi13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 July 2005
      • You've voted three times 1 2 3 so far. Uncle G 19:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • New definitions and new usages of words matter to a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopaedia. Even were it allowed to use these projects to promulgate newly invented meanings for words, as you are attempting to do, an encyclopaedia would not be the place for doing such a thing. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the disambiguated version I see now. Andre (talk) 22:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. The original, minus the 'we love ourselves' bit... Boshing envelopes a state of mind too great to confine to a dictionary. At the end of the day, there are potentially thousands who Bosh gleefully yet fail to understand the greater concepts. Where do you look for the history of a culture? a dictionary? : ChrisBosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.3 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 July 2005 UTC.
  • This vandalism was that user's very next edit.
  • well said, it belongs in a ancyclopedia, which is more adept at trying to explain the universal truth the word implies, is more than just a word, is an attitude, and to understand it one needs to see its origins and its developement. That cannot be found in a dictionary. Mimi13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi13 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 July 2005 UTC
    • There is no "universal truth" to be explained here. Bosh is just a surname, some writings by Edward Lear, and nonsense — the items listed and linked to in the disambiguation. Uncle G 19:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• nonsense. Bosh is a word used in the UK to mean "nonsense". It is regarded as excessively polite and upper-class, and so has dropped out of fashion quite a bit, but is still widely used, particularly in mocking upper-class accents and so forth. Bosch is a surname. Bosh should be transwikied to wiktionary, and the article should only redirect to Bosh the book by Lear. ~~~~ 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary has an article already, note. In fact it has two, one on the common noun and one on the proper noun. There are links to both of them in the name disambiguation version of the article and in the discussion above. Uncle G 19:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is fine as a disambiguation page. I'm sure wiktionary doesn't wish to be the VfD dumping ground. I have no idea which in-jokes we are missing here - 6th form humour? Secretlondon 08:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is already a Wiktionary entry. As to the stuff about bosh being the core of a way of life, a page containing a full write-up for that way of life would serve the purpose better. Adding such a page would be better than keeping this one. Tygertyger 18:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nose game

A simple game made up by a bunch of policy kids, determining that the person who touches his nose last has to do some kind of unpleasant task. Not encyclo. Radiant_>|< 11:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• delete --Melaen 14:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 16:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the fact that I've "played" this on a regular basis (which in and of itself would count as original research) it is not exactly an encyclopedic article. And, of course, the real way to play it is to say "not it" as well... --Icelight 16:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting...but not worthy of an entry. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Hammond

Vanity (I think). If not deletion then serious cleanup is required. Paddy whack 11:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Not vanity. I'm not Jeremy Hammond. If you wish to suggest some of the steps to clean it up, I'd be more than willing to listen, and can probably oblige. Chi2600Admin
  • There are a couple things to do to make this an OK contribution. First, you have to explain why this guy is notable (see Wikipedia:Notability). He's just a criminal, albeit a politically-motivated one--what has he done to get into an encyclopedia? Secondly, you have to write as if you're a third party--for example, phrases like "our entire mail server" have to go. Also, remember to follow Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • DOH! Thanks for the heads-up. Some of the stuff is chopped straight out from news on the issues. I thought I'd purged the first-person stuff. Will begin reworking this entry.Chi2600Admin
• Delete - no evidence that he's anything other than one of myriad small-time criminals. CDC (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CDC. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Much of the content is what he "would have done." As his own defense was "I didn't do anything really bad" he isn't that notable. --Icelight 23:07, July 20, 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. --Dmcdevit·t 06:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Slow now

• Delete Nonsense article that seems to be an advertisement. Mrendo 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fast as possible — along with the rest of this morning's crop of stuff from the same user. Bill 12:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete. vanity/commercial/patent nonsense Robinh 12:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• ok delete. Can I delete it? I don't think it's patent nonsense, but it needs to be included in a larger entry. --Jseidel 15:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (ironically enough) as per request of only editor Jseidel. Dcarrano 16:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. Themindset 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly moving some content to Wikiquote. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio, deleted. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wisekey

Looks like advertising. NSR (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted after listing on WP:CP--Duk 15:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Wiskey gets over 41,000 google hits, however "World Internet Secure Key" only gets around 345. --Eliezer 12:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as copyvio, direct cut-and-paste from their website. I'm not sure about their notability, but it doesn't look good... surely if they were big players in the internet security arena they'd manage more than their present Alexa rank of 784,708 (Verisign, for comparison's sake, is in the top 5000). In any case, we'd do better to start from scratch than to try to build on a copyvio anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as above. Added template to page. -Harmil 13:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

South Australian English

Encyclopedic content is already on Australian English. This stub is quite POV. It should redirect to Australian English. Silversmith Hewwo 13:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand It sounds like there are authoritative sources that say one thing and real-world exceptions to that rule. Sounds like a job for an encyclopedia ... no? Certainly not POV from my reading (remember that POV and disputed are different) -Harmil 13:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not POV at all. Kappa 13:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

So you don't find "According to some people" to be POV then? Perhaps "Disputed" would be a better term for this article. Plus "much vocabulary attributed to South Australians is used elsewhere." There is more than enough room to discuss SA Enlish on the Australian English article - in fact it already is discussed there. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of the qualifiers are poor in style, but where would an encyclopedia be without qualifiers? The references and the interest/controversy (same thing really), shown by the discussion page speak for themselves. Me POV? Never :-) Grant65 (Talk) 14:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect — Silversmith has used the wrong term. It is not POV; it simply makes unattributed claims. The main point is that this article is pointless. Everything that needs to be said about this mythical South Australian English is said at Australian English. If and when there is an unwieldy amount of info in that article, the article South Australian English can perhaps be created. Death to pointless stubs. A VfD is not necessary to make redirects. I shall continue making this pointless stub a redirect ad nauseam. Grant65's pet article will be no more. — Chameleon 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The above speaks volumes about the psychology of those who want to get rid of the page. As I've said before, Australian words has already been hived off from Australian English due to the latter's size. I have many pet articles; this is merely the latest. I recommend having pets, without them you end up bitter and twisted and go around redirecting pages which other people have created  :-) Grant65 (Talk) 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Australian English. --malathion ^talk 15:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Australian English. Unnecessary fork. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Appears to have great encyclopedic growth potential, and Australian English is already quite large. -- Visviva 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was going to vote delete but reading the article and looking at the source documents has convinced me otherwise. This is a good little article although it should perhaps be renamed as South Australian dialects.Capitalistroadster 17:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Great article that has a potential as possibly a future featured article candidate if expanded and improved diligently. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep articles about sub-dialects of dialects are encyclopedic. For example, from the American English article you will find links to articles like African American Vernacular English, North Central American English, Southern American English, California English, New York-New Jersey English, Hawaiian English, and Pittsburgh English. Revolución 02:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Australian English is already a large article and this article has separable content--AYArktos 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Silversmith. No notably seperable content. royblumy 02:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • By that logic, we might as well delete all articles about sub-dialects of dialects because they're not "notably separable"! Is this not a sub-dialect of Australian English? Revolución 02:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Quick comment: how many of the crtiics above are from Australia ? How many of them speak Australian English ? If ever there was a time/place for those who don't know about a subject, to GtFO of serious analytic discussion of it .... Simoncursitor sig added by Silversmith
  • Define "critic". It is you who want to get rid of the article. And who is to say that other Australians have the best perspective on this? There appears to be great ignorance, possibly even hostility (cultural cringe anyone?) to the very idea that there are regional dialects. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm an Australian, from Victoria. I never noticed a difference between VIC English and SA English. If there is a difference, then it is nowhere near as obvious as the Aus/NZ difference. The big difference in Aus. English is how "ocker" you are, which isn't state dependant. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Gawd...for the umpteenth time, there are significant (and generally underrated) differences in vocabulary around Australia and that is the point. Another is the debunking of myths about a "South Australian accent". (Although evidence has been presented for a Victorian accent.) Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Australian English until a linguistically informed article on South Australian English can be written. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Errrm.....the article is being written. That is what "stub" means. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Australian English.JamesBurns 07:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 10:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Australian English. I'm fourth and fifth generation South Australian. While we have both a few unique words and a slightly distinctive accent, it's not different enough for a separate article in a world-focussed encyclopaedia. They'll make the Australian English article richer. --ScottDavis 12:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

How "different" would it have to be? Are we going to be deleting articles en masse now because they are about things which, in our opinions, are "not different enough" ? Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Different enough to be a clearly distinct subject. As it is, merging this into Australian English would improve that article. This article can't stand on its own without the wider article. SA English is a minor variation on the rest of Aus English, but isn't distinctive to non-Australians. --ScottDavis 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep although a merge wouldn't be disastrous. I have previously stated that I thought the article should be merged and redirected to Australian English, but that was at a stage when it was a woeful stub with seemingly no potential. Since it has been expanded upon (though, admittedly, it still has a way to go) I can see it developing into a useful article. I do, however, take issue with the labelling of theories of a distinct South Australian accent as "myths" given some linguists would undoubtedly assert this. A more detailed and referenced discussion is required in that regard. There was previously exploration of "South Australian English" in the Australian English article, but this was progressively removed, most probably because the dominant opinion is dismissive of regional variations in AusE.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not merge. Given that a reference book does exist, I think this article is sufficiently verifiable and notable. The fact that many Australians dispute the existence of this dialect is worthy of mention therein; the fact that South Australians might take pride in differences is also worth mentioning. This may say something about the sociology of language, as well as language itself. Xoloz 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ... Australian English is a large article, and sub-dialects are a good candidate for splitting out, as per comments above re: American dialects. --Skud 01:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There seems to be sufficient material for an article. Binadot 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (either with Australian English or, if that page is too big, a new Regional Varieties in Australian English page). This is the vote I said I was going to make in the Article's talk page. Almost nothing encyclopedic that could be said in this article would not be better said elsewhere, leaving it as a semi-permanent stub. Felix the Cassowary 09:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you underestimate how much there is to be said about regional varieties of Australian English. I suggest you have a good read of Australian Word Map. I don't believe you will make such statements once you have. Do you really want to see Australian English dominated by discussion of regional varieties? Grant65 (Talk) 13:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, read the second half of my parenthetical. I think the best option would be a single page discussing all regional varieties of English (you could then put a para there about how South Australianisms are more often derived from Cornish and German, if that's the case, then in other dialects). That webpage you link me to is full of colloquialisms, yeah, but has a lack of things like stras/devon. Should we have an article on 1932 English in Adelaide? The colloquialisms they used then were probably quite different from those in 1832 Adelaide. The page also doesn't have a whole lot to say on other things you could discuss like pronunciation differences. Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

(I'd imagine that colloquialisms used in 1932 Adelaide would be very different from 1832, given Adelaide do not even exist at that point : ). It was founded in 1836.)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The "stras/devon/polony/windsor/etc" thing is there. The site is expressly about words, which as we know are far more signficant in Australian regional language than purported "accents". Grant65 (Talk) 02:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant there aren't many noncolloquialisms on that site (that I could find, but it's not a great site in that way), not that there's none. Of course the stras/devon/polony/windsor thing's mentioned there, otherwise I'd hardly've known of it. Now if the significant thing in Aussie regional variation is words, can you show me why (given the three regions in SA), SA English forms a unit? Just for political reasons, or are there actual linguistic regions for that? (If you can show that, then I might not have such a strong objection to an article on the same.) Felix the Cassowary 13:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Word Map site identifies 27 "dialects". However, none of these crosses a state/territory border. There are good reasons why this is the case, such as the history as six separate British colonies (by the time of Australian federation anyway). This set up economic/education/media/etc ties to the state/territory capital cities. In parallel with Jauncey's book there are also publications about West Australian English (also 3 dialects), Queensland English (5 dialects) and so on. It is conceivable that 27 articles could be written at some stage but for obvious reasons I'm not keen to do that at present. Grant65 (Talk) 04:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, for reasons given by ScottDavis. Alphax ^τεχ 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Australian english is so diverse that the different forms should have their own pages. -- OldRight 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 02:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Under The Mat

Marginally coherent talk about a band. Totally unencyclopenic. TexasAndroid 14:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Delete - non-encyclopedic ranting JoJan 14:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn --malathion ^talk 15:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 16:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity nonsense. --Etacar11 00:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vain and unencyclopedic. JogCon 23:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Klaus Dingeldein

Delete: vanity page (or needed strong clean up)) Cate 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Keep - I cleaned it up a bit, but this article it still little more than a bio-stub. JoJan 14:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no claim to notability asserted. Dcarrano 16:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn royblumy 02:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a simple bio of a person who has been part of wing chun european history. This is not a vanity page. Removing this page means removing all the pages related to others masters and instructors in this site. Furio 12:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • masters and instructors are like teachers and professors per se not notable. Cate 06:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Xoloz 04:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete'. Dmcdevit·t 00:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Patxi

"Patxi" is a common Basque name with no religious connotations, not a Basque deity. Hoax. DS 14:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Basque version of the name Francis. No entry in Encyclopedia Mythica. Needs more detail and better references to be viable. — RJH 15:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also an orphaned page.-LtNOWIS 15:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Dcarrano 16:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/hoax. --Etacar11 00:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Dont Delete conversing with a Basque friend of mine has suggested that there may be some truth in this. Obviously more research will have to be carried out. Csjunior 23.23, 20th July

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but I'm going to redirect, just in case :). humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

10-0-11 0-0 by 0-2

Delete. Way too crufty, and unlikely ever to be searched for. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft. Gwk 15:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The information is already on the Gallifrey page.--GingerM 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As all above. KeithD 16:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --KFP 16:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fancruft JoJan 18:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• It's almost unfortunate that this has to be deleted, because I think it deserves some sort of fancruft award. I've seen a lot of cruft in my time, but this has got to be about the cruftiest ever. That's a delete vote, by the way. -R. fiend 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no need for an article on such a minor detail. Having it on Gallifrey where it is already is good enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gallifrey --Tim Pope 21:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I almost never vote to delete, but I agree with R. field. I think this is the cruftiest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia.--Arcadian 23:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gallifrey. I actually made this one :( But yes, go on, I suppose I was just eager to start contributing. It is kinda stupid. But I think redirection would be best.--Codenamecuckoo 11:03, July 31, 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Kim B. Clark

Is this guy notable? Gwk 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just saw 'this guy', Kim B. Clark on an interview on Charlie Rose on PBS. Was a superb interview. Then immediately came to Wikipedia to see what it said about him. Was very disappointed to see this *deletion* vote. Dr. Clark is definitely someone to watch. Geek84 07:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't a Dean of the Faculty at Harvard Business School be considered notable? Undoubtedly. sampse_1 15:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I wanted to know if he's notable -I didn't say if I wanted it deleted. If anything, the article needs a rewrite. Gwk 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• I believe we agree. The article requires editing/polishing. sampse_1 15:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability well above the typical academic. Dcarrano 16:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough JoJan 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, this individual is notable. Hall Monitor 18:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deans of university departments are usually a step above professors in notability; most get that way by having been notable professors, or having other notable achievements in the discipline. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and make into an example of a keepable academic, on the WP:PROF page. -Splash 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup focussing more on his contributions to business studies as a whole. Notable professor with number of works to his credit. Capitalistroadster 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hjo3.net

Delete Does not establish notability. Does not meet the requirements in Category:Bloggers for includable blogs. Icelight 15:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - even with 653 Google hits, this blog remains not notable in my opinion JoJan 18:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Many of those hits are also for various forum accounts etc. with the same name. And an Alexa rank of 1,554,779. Erm... --Icelight 19:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete because it is just about a personal blogger. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog. Dcarrano 17:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

David W. Broder

Supposedly about a member of a British marxist group, but googling for "David W. Broder" +Communist or "David W. Broder" "Red Party" gets no hits. Non-verifiable, non-notable. Meelar (talk) 15:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, being a member of a political party is not notable in any way, even if there were any proof at all that he was that. Dcarrano 16:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiable evidence presented as to membership and indication of notability of membership. Being a member of a political party is not an indication of notability- I can claim that. Holding an important position in the party such as leadership or being an elected representative is. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 18:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete possible hoax. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Googling for "David Broder Red Party" or "David Broder Workers' Liberty" results in numerous hits

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

J-Revolution.com

Advertising. This entry was created by a user obviously affiliated with the subject. 66.216.68.28 15:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it was, but we are making it a factual encyclopedia artical, give us a few minutes. Jrev

Even if it weren't advertising, then it is still not notable or encyclopedic. --66.216.68.28 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's why I said to wait, we are in the process of writing a page for it. Jrev

The subject isn't going to become any more notable in a few minutes. But whatever, let wikipedia decide who is right. --66.216.68.28 16:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising a non-notable website. --KFP 16:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, self-promotion, not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with it. It's not a bias article, and never actually offers a link to the site in question. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 17:16, 18 July 2005 — (100%MoreAwesomeThanYou's 3rd edit.)
• Keep. Honestly, what is wrong with the page? It's a big site, and we ARE explaining what the site is about, and how it started... --JRev 17:25, 18 July 2005
  • When you started this page, you should have seen this text: Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • EXACTLY why we AREN'T promoting it. We are giving a detailed listing of how the site came about, what the site is about... not promoting it.
      • The act of merely creating the article could be seen as promotion, but let's leave that aside for the moment: "J-Revolution.com is a great source for information", "While you are there, you can learn many things", "Pulling in staffers from all over the world, J-Revolution aspires for the top", "the staff and admin have made a name for themselves on the internet for being there for the users" is all promotional language that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV, and also Wikipedia:Importance. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 17:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Keyword: "promote." The article in question never says something like "...so go visit (Webpage name here) today! It gives a brief overview of what the site contains, and some minor background information. If, for example, Burger King only told you what their products contained, and gave a brief background of it, in an ad, I don't think they would gain many sales from that ad. A more solid argument would be that it is irrelevant or non-notable. If the act of creating that page is advertising, than the Google page needs a load of work. The Google page includes a link to their search, even though it is posted as Google Inc. Seems like a silly way to cover an ad. The article in question could use some minor editing to be appropriate, but that is not a reason to exterminate it entirely. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 17:54, 18 July 2005
          • If POV were the only issue here, then yes, some minor editing would be fine for this article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
            • That would be why I said that a more solid argument would be that it is irrelevant or non-notable. I stand by my opinion that it is notable enough to be kept. --100%MoreAwesomeThanYou 18:20, 18 July 2005

Yes, and if you notice, we say that we ASPIRE for the top, that you CAN learn many things, that we WANT to be the best, we never say we are. We are not being biased.

• Lack of importance is the main issue here, not bias. The site does not seem to be notable enough to merit an article at Wikipedia, at least not yet. --KFP 18:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Notability is definitely the main issue here. I was merely pointing out problems with the promotional language in the article, which is a side issue. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Therefore you would be biased against the site. Saying that YOU think it isn't notable enough. To some people it is.

• Delete. You assume that others are "biased" against something they've only just heard of. That's not the case. This is (a) a non-notable website and (b) self-promotion. It's not an encyclopedia article.

---

Except from amazon.com entry: Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) is an American electronic commerce company based in Seattle, Washington. It was one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet. Amazon also owns Alexa Internet, a9.com, and the Internet Movie Database (IMDb).

Amazon assigns a unique identifier, the Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN), to each item it sells. (For books, the ASIN is the same as the item's ISBN, if it has one.) Amazon offers access to its catalog via web services, much as Google does to its search engine. In addition, a9.com provides search engine services directly on the Amazon.com site.

Launched in 1995, Amazon.com began as an online book-selling company but has now branched off into many other areas, including DVDs, music CDs, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, and more.

---

This is quite similitar to the j-revolution definition. Look back at it. J-Revolution is a major site in the anime world that is growing more known each day. When people see J-Rev or J-Revolution, they're either curious or already know what it means. Having the definition here shows inquisitive minds what the site is about.

• Delete. Not notable. Shanes 19:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to User:Jrev. There are a few hundred google hits for the site, once after sorting out some extemporaneous material. The site has an Alexa rank of 209,094, which is a little under the usual bar set for including purely web-based material. --Icelight 19:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • No redirects from article space to user space, please. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --KFP 20:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, meant to type Merge, as that user is the company. Got distracted while typing. Icelight 22:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Merge implies a redirect. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. That Alexa rank is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below what would normally be considered notable. -Splash 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The user admitted that the site had only been operating since April 2005, with around 300 members to date. Give it a year or so to see whether the site becomes as popular/notable as it ASPIREs to become. Regardless, the article needs to be edited to follow an encyclopedic format; right now some sections read like a company mission statement.--Madchester 21:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that this is a notable website. Sorry. CDC (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. Dcarrano 23:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deletio vanitosis. --FOo 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website (Alexa ranking 209,094). Also the site appears to be down at the moment. --Stormie 03:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable website. JamesBurns 07:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising (as shown by promotional rhetoric) and vanity at the same time, since the contributor practically admits that he is promoting his site. Not to mention that WP is NOT web directory. I hope he is not recruiting for sock- or meatpuppets. Skysmith 08:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that 69.172.214.39 (talk · contribs), who has been involved with this VFD, blanked it. He may try again - Skysmith 09:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move it to the user page until notability is established. Bart133 (t) 16:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard to draw a comparison between a well-known company (like Amazon) with a recently-created site. Even if the article were perfect, it's still not notable yet. --Titoxd 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Binadot 03:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional towns in Texas

We already have List of fictional cities this article just seems superfluous to me. --The_stuart 14:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Superfluous. --Salleman 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. You can't tell me those are the only two fictional towns in Teas. -- Visviva 15:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "List of fictional towns in X" is an unnecessary species at this time; redundant with "List of fictional cities." Xoloz 04:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From the LFC: "This page is 52 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable." -- Visviva 04:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but why Texas, and specifically, why by place at all? "List of fictional towns in Literature" or "...Television", or "...American Literature"? Or, if by place, why not "...in the US" or "...in the UK," etc. Texas seems arbitrarily tiny for this sort of thing. Also, consider, "...beginning with A-L" and "beginning with M-Z" as another way to split things. Xoloz 06:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not all of the above? The great thing about Wikipedia is that we can list and categorize things in as many different ways as we want... including by US state, which although somewhat strange actually provides a lot more user value than "List of fictional towns beginning with A." -- Visviva 12:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is wonderful, but multiple lists with the same information would be redundant, and (more importantly) less user-friendly -- it would be extremely difficult to get a comprehensive list of fictional towns if the filing system were eclectic and repetitive. Xoloz 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Dsmdgold 03:15, 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 delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

MaryEllen Locher

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an obituary --BradBeattie 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sad news but non-encyclopedic JoJan 18:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no reason that this cannot be kept under Wikipedia rules. I would err on the side of keeping an article, unless specific evidence that it has violated Wiki standards are explained (this not being the case, I vote to keep.)

But by that note, shouldn't we have a record of every non-notable someone that's died of something tragic? --BradBeattie 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep only if there is more information and does not emphasize her death. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. Dcarrano 23:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above royblumy 02:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 07:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded per Stevey7788. Local news anchors are often notable, but the article must say more than death details. Xoloz 04:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 17:45, 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 speedy redirect to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Deloitte Consulting

vanity 66.216.68.28 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, since it is just one line of nonsense. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. --KFP 16:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I redirected it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and the images too. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cool Dela Peña

Appears to be non-notable vanity. I left the userfy tag on there for several days. This guy only gets 7 non-wikipedia hits on Google. Pictures and weblog entries...I say delete --Etacar11 16:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per User:Etacar11. --BradBeattie 16:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity JoJan 18:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn, images may be copyvio ("permission for syndication") is not a valid WP license, and that's stated in the article, not the image description page. -Harmil 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Pacific lodge

advertising, not notable 66.216.68.28 16:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, since it is pretty much a promo and the article is pure spam with the number to call for reservations. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as per Zscout370. --BradBeattie 16:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as per Zscout Naturenet | Talk 16:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert and not notable but doesn't meet criteria for speedy deletion. --KFP 16:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If having "Reservations for King Pacific Lodge are made through our Vancouver Sales Office. Above you will find a Reservations Form that can be submitted via fax to 604.987.5472. After your reservation is made, we ask that you complete a Personal Preferences Form so that we can make sure that all arrangements are made to make your visit perfect." is not criteria for speedy deletion, then I have no clue what is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • According to this, [8], it was deleted earlier. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would certainly like to see this article speedily deleted. However, according to Wikipedia deletion policy, advertisements masquerading as articles should be dealt with at VfD (although this article does a poor job at masquerading: it is blatant spam copied directly from [9] and is thus a possible copyvio). --KFP 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It has been deleted, so, it looks like it can be closed now. (Which, I notice many articles coming here are speedied after they are listed here. Should we have a Proposed Deletions page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 02:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Labor Day Pyro-Geek 2005

vanity, rubbish 66.216.68.28 16:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity and rubbish. Also warn their mothers that their children are going to burn their faces off if they're not careful. --Unsigned comment left by KeithD
• Keep. Our Mother's know exactly what we are doing and understand the risks we are taking. -anon 141.157.46.64

Comment This comment was left by 141.157.46.64, who has only had four edits, two of them on the actual Pyro Geek article. --WikiFan04

Comment Please, do not edit other people's votes. See the guide if you have questions about the validity of anonymous votes or votes by the page author. -Harmil 19:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, possible joke. --WikiFan04^{Talk 12:26, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
• Delete vanity, nn, prediction -Harmil 19:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. Jaxl 19:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete + redirects. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jonas Day

See also "jonas day" and Jonas Day" which are redirects to this page

The article does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC for notability. Naturenet | Talk 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN JoJan 18:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete google nn, band vanity -Harmil 19:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano 23:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe redirect to Jones Day. Pburka 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 07:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jack Gobbell

Vanity 66.216.68.28 16:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Only returns 53 hits, some not original. Delete. *--WikiFan04^{Talk 12:22, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)}

• Delete. Nonsense. --Salleman 17:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity JoJan 18:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity -Harmil 19:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 19:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Can't this be speedied? --Etacar11 00:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards transwiki. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Release Management

Not encyclopedic 66.216.68.28 17:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep While this is a dreadful article, the topic is encyclopedic. Keep and rewrite (and rename to correct capitalisation). By the way, anon's shouldn't be making VFD nominations, I believe, but let's leave this here. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Anyone can make a nomination, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users." [10] --66.216.68.28 17:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki Though only after complete rewrite. --Several Times 13:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. I agree with DJ Clayworth that this is a dreadful article, but worth trying to cleanup. Daedalus-Prime 18:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • After the cleanup that has been done so far (thanks Jbminn), I'll agree with Harmil and change my vote to Transwiki to wikibooks. Daedalus-Prime 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki I'm contacting the author of the original [11] article now and asking him if he intended to release it under the GFDL, and if the submitter was really him. If I get a good answer there, I'll clean up the article, otherwise it needs to be speedied. -Harmil

• Having contacted the author, I am satisfied that this is not a copyvio. However, in reading it more fully in preperation for an NPOVification and cleanup, I realize that this is actually a manual / HOWTO, not an encyclopedic entry. Thus, it makes more sense to simply transwiki this to wikibooks as it's a published article that has some relevance to the evolution of free software development. -Harmil 22:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless rewritten into proper article. To keep such drivel makes no sense. Pavel Vozenilek 23:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Revision control. Pburka 00:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: This redirect would not be approrpriate given the incorrect caps. -Harmil 12:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep having worked in SE and SQA I am convinced an entry is useful. Merely redirecting to Revision control understates the importance of release management. Looking through job ads you will also see this is a specific role for which people are employed. 85.164.76.75 22:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jordan_Acker

Vanity and/or mockery

;Bear 16:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Flowerparty 17:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no claim to notability, vanity -Harmil 18:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 18:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 19:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn intern vanity. --Etacar11 00:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Moshzilla

Non-notable, could be merged into Internet phenomenon. Merge and delete. --WikiFan04^{Talk 12:18, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)}

• Merge and delete as above. KeithD 17:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I do think this both adequately notable and encyclopaedic jamesgibbon 17:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep in mind that merge and delete is an incompatible vote which will be discounted. Thus, I say delete. If we want something from this for Internet phenomenon, then someone should add it now and let the conversation ensue there. Certainly non-encyclopedic on its own (summary: a picture floated around several sites and was named "moshzilla", followed by people being told to take it down by the photographee's parents) -Harmil 18:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Harmil. Jaxl 19:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Internet phenomenon and redirect, not worthy of its own article but I see no problem with a redirect, since "Moshzilla" seems to be a reasonably recognizable name for it. Dcarrano 23:34, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not everything that happens on the internet is a phenomenon. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 02:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete transient notability at best. JamesBurns 08:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been photoshopped a lot, e.g. ([12]). ArcTheLad 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. And how does a lot of photoshopping and a mention on LiveJournal give it notability? --WikiFan04^{Talk 17:21, 19 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
  • Quoting from ([13]), "Within a few weeks, the photos had spread to multiple message boards, some of which were attracting a quarter of a million hits." According to Wikipedia's policy on importance: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." I don't know how you can defend the position that it isn't a well-known meme. There are probably more than 500 photoshopped images, and, of course, many more people that are interested in it. The people voting delete do not seem to be familiar with the phenomenon and appear to be basing their votes only on the content of the Wikipedia article. ArcTheLad 23:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "The people voting delete do not seem to be familiar with the phenomenon..." Really? I thought many people were interested in it! Surely our fellow Wikipedians should know about it. I did. Before listing this article on VfD. "There are probably more than 500 photoshopped images..." Probably? How can you know? Is this like the "tourist guy"? Show me where I can see these 500+ photoshopped images. In fact, I'm going to make more than 1,000 photoshoppings of myself in the next week, and make an article about the photoshoppings, because, you know, there's 1,000 photoshoppings of a picture of me. --WikiFan04^{Talk 4:02, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)}
      • ([14]). The main album (from the image gallery that's mentioned in this Wikipedia article) was deleted but the thumbnails are still in Google's cache. ArcTheLad 20:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete For internet phenomena, the Google bar is higher, because the internet is presumably the major source of notability. This thing gets 9,800 Google hits, which is fairly low as these things go. Xoloz 04:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As if a moment's entertainment for a few internet users is really something that needs to be recorded for posterity in an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Merge into Internet phenomenon, does not deserve a full article, has had a small impact on a relatively small amount of people. [[User:Rtconner]Rtconner]]
• Delete non-notable and not very kind to the girl in question either. Samboy 06:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Internet phenomenon and redirect Dunemaire 14:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. If the vote goes against deletion, then at least merge and redirect. It doesn't need its own article. Chuck 19:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayendran

vanity, not notable, rubbish 66.216.68.28 17:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree. --Salleman 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete google nn, vanity -Harmil 18:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 18:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 19:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn student vanity. --Etacar11 00:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 08:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Though if anyone truly wants to make it a redirect, they are very cheap. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Asdasdasd

This is non-encyclopedic

• Strong Delete -- Rubbish. Daedalus-Prime 18:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, since asdf exists (and not bad at that), I'll change my vote to Redirect. Daedalus-Prime 19:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete patent nonsense -Harmil 18:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to asdf. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 18:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to asdf JoJan 19:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Jaxl 19:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is nothing to distinguish asdasdasd from jkljkljkl or slaskjaskfjaskf or slfkwqopasf or what have you, so no reason to redirect that particular phrase. Dcarrano 23:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect not useful. Qwerty and Asdf have a bit of history behind them, I suppose; this one does not. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy -- nonsense. - Longhair | Talk 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, would be a bad redirect. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/ NO REDIR. Very bad idea for a redirect. Xoloz 04:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It was just an idea... &#0149;Zhatt&#0149; 06:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, no offense intended, sorry. I am nothing but one big, fat "bad idea" :) Xoloz 06:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was, ignoring the unsigned votes, delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Feem

Pseudo-linguistic bullfeem. Joyous (talk) 18:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,It may be pseudo-linguistic bullfeem, but 'feem' is actually used like that by a considerable group of people that live around the South East. I don't see anyone else using feem, so I think we have a natural right to claim its use as such.

- John Duke: Atlanta, Georgia

• Keep,Please keep feem, it is a highly used word among a group of people.

• Delete Can't see any indication in a Google search that it's used by anyone. Big pile of feeming bullfeem. KeithD 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Type feems into google, and you should find the following site - http://feem.sycophancy.net/home.html click the logo that says feems. People use the word. You yourself have just used it.

That's the website of someone called John Duke, which is coincidentally the same name as someone in favour of keeping the word. Thus it's either a form of vanity or a copyvio. KeithD 19:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I originated the use of the word like that (I actually got the word from an episode of 2 Stupid Dogs), but pretty much all of my good friends use the word, and it has been passed on to places as far as Idaho (I had a friend that got people to use it there). So, really, it's not just me, though certainly it would seem that way as I'm the only person who would probably care to have it up on wikipedia. But I still feel I have a right to claim the word, not as my own, but at least for the usage I came up with. - John

• Delete Neologism. Bobbis 19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an in-joke between you and your friends and no-one else cares. Ben-w 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,If no one else cares, what's the point in arguing about it? Just ignore it and let the people have fun.

The point is that no one else has taken the word. It's up for the claiming, It's being used infinitely more by s than anyone else. You can find plenty of localized, insignificant stuff on this thing anyway.

• Keep,I find this word quite useful and it has been a part of my regualr vocabulary for a number of years. It doesn't matter where it orginated so long as people find it facilitates communication. It's true what John says. I have heard it used by people who know neither he nor I. Shakespeare invented words that have come into common use. Feem, even Heinlen's "grok" is in wikipedia. "Grok" was a fabricated word, but people found it useful, and even though it's more or less an inside joke among scifi fans, it's used for more than getting cheap laughs. I see no difference between "grok" and "feem" in this respect. Keep it, or if it MUST go then just move it to the Wiktionary. - Will Mockridge

From Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion

1. Clearly widespread use,
2. Usage in a well known work,
3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
4. Usage, conveying meaning, in at least three independently recorded instances spanning at least a year, whether in print, audio, video or on the internet.

I'd say it doesn't merit a move to Wiktionary either. KeithD 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,I use this word about 90% of the time that I can't remember a common usage word such as "pan" or "run" but if I can manage to insert a word there, the sentence makes sense. This happens to me more often than it should, and just because you've never heard it used doesn't mean it doesn't have useful applications to others. I say keep the word, since "neologism" (to use one of your own shiny five dollar words) keeps the language evolving. (unsigned edit by User:68.19.17.60, whose only edit is this one. Joyous (talk) 20:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC))
• Please note that Heinlein and Shakespeare are both famous people, which gives the words they invented slightly more weigth. Also, the current info suggests it's a dictionary entry and wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Words shouldn't have an article unless they are used on a national level at the very least. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:59, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Which means 'delete. Also, you responded to "no one else cares about" when in fact the most important part of that line was "in-joke between friends" which means it's not notable for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It defies dictionary definition, since it is not so much a word as a tool for not having to use words. That's why the mimicked dictionary part of my entry looks comical and ridiculous. I was also under the impression that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to stab at an impossibility - a complete collection of all human knowledge. Now, there are some tribal groups somewhere with dwindling numbers that speak their own language and have their own customs who probably number less than the people who use the word feem. But the main point is this: having this entry in Wikipedia obstructs nothing and can only add to one's knowledge. There are no real reasons to NOT put it in. Oh, and it's also not a joke, since people use it without even thinking about it. - John

• Keep,meh let them keep their word. -artorhemnnahs
• Delete neologism, no information whether anyone uses it. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as in-joke neologism. You could put it in Everything₂, which doesn't require a degree of encyclopedic value in their articles. — Asbestos | Talk 23:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 23:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:WINAD, and Wiktionary wouldn't want it, anyway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep,Does a term have to be known/used throughout the entire English-speaking world to merit inclusion in a international collection of knowledge such as wikipedia? There are plenty of current entries that are completely acceptable that not everyone in the world, or even a specific country such as the USA, knows. This word is not known just among a small group of friends in the Southeast. I personally know several individuals from locals such as Washington (state), Idaho, Utah, and California (who have never been to Georgia at all) who effectively use 'feem' in their vernacular. Besides, sundry modern English words and phrases began as "in-jokes between friends" and eventually became used by a sizeable portion of the population. See the many California 'surfer' terms or internet terminology that have become commonplace among the rising generation in North America. Every year, such diction becomes more widespread. Now, I am not promising that feem will become so common, for I cannot see the future. Nevertheless, it is a vehicle to express certain ideas that other words or phrases cannot sufficiently illustrate. As John stated, it can only add to human knowledge, not detract. I see no reason not to include it in this encyclopedia, in spite of prejudices formed by those unfamiliar with said word. -A. Pauluk

• Delete, if solid evidence that this word is genuinely in use is provided, then I will change my vote to "Move to Wiktionary". But for now, delete. --Stormie 03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I see no reason why it should be deleted, or even moved to the Wiktionary. We have demonstrated a "national" usage. While most people who use the word live in and around Atlanta, I personally know of people who use the word in Michigan, California, Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Ohio and Russia. The spread of the word is both through actual communication and through the Internet. I find it quite a useful word, and say it quite a lot in all seriousness in order to avoid perplexing conversation gaps. Because of it's interesting etymology, I say it merits it's inclusion in the Wikipedia. It's not just a word, but a new way of going about conversation that can help reduce the prevalence of "Like, Uh... You know" in our language. Praetorian42 06:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)~
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and surprisingly enough, Redirect to Enchanter (game) - it's a spell from that game. Radiant_>|< 10:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Binadot 03:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, In-joke neologism is the best description I've seen so far. I don't see how an "interesting etymology" merits entry. An "useful etymology" perhaps, but this entire article is simiply made up on the spot. The majority of the rules center around "you can use this however you feel like at any point". Subjunctive is a mood not a tense by the way. Further, if you really believe it has merit as a replacement to words like "uh", than you should add a section to speech disfluencies. The likelihood of someone actually wanting to look this up on their own is next to zero. (editted because I suck at words)
• Delete neologism. 03:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No show socks

(Note: User:Microfeet initiated this Vfd, but I've formatted it and added it to the list. Joyous (talk) 19:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC))

Strong Speedy Delete Vandalism MicroFeet 00:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Captain Freedom

A student created program broadcasted on the college closed-circuit. No Google hits.

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --PrologFan | Talk 19:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 08:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I bet if this was a Harvard show or a USC show, it'd be notable, but I guess since it's just dumb ol' UCSD, no one gives a damn, right? 142.179.211.200 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Boo hoo. I really feel for you, man. Delete. Binadot 03:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, student TV shows are not notable. Dcarrano 17:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I'd vote for deletion even if it was a Harvard or USC show, mate. Unless the show had a great popculture impact, it shouldn't be here. Elefuntboy 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. IINAG 22:18, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:35, August 3, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Christie Monteiro and associated characters on List of Tekken characters

Unnecessary page; very little information, all of which could be summarized in a short paragraph on the List of Tekken characters page. Vyran 19:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. There already is a short paragraph about here in the List of Tekken characters. The other pages made for each character should be merged into the main article too (read: deleted). --BradBeattie 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already covered in List of Tekken characters. Dcarrano 23:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, stubby tekkencruft. JamesBurns 08:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT for character stubs. Characters that have lengthy informative information could have their own pages. Radiant_>|< 10:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all, the article List of Tekken characters is too long (and is still growing), and some material is being moved to articles of Category:Tekken characters (the work is already started). Those articles will be filled with much more info, like the character movements (see Jin Kazama or Asuka Kazama. She is not a major character, but her article is fairly long, and not appropiate to move to the article List of Tekken characters). --surueña 12:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm cutting back on the extra unnecessary things on the List of Tekken characters page. --Vyran 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There are other character pages for other games too. should we delete those as well? --Dangerous-Boy
• Keep Agree with Dangerous Boy. Some Tekken fan will probably create the same page in the future regarding this fictional character. --Krystyn Dominik 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into main character article. Main article should be drastically expanded. Articles which grow too large for main article get their own articles, not the other way around. --Golbez 17:30, July 26, 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 07:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Trax (IRC_channel)

This page essentially says "an irc channel exists." This is essentially the same thing as saying "a web forum exists". Wikipedia is not here to document the existence of every internet community ever. The topic could be mentioned in a larger Tracking article as a footnote perhaps, but this article should go.

• Delete as fluff, trivia. JoshuaRodman 20:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Third edit by JoshuaRodman (talk · contribs) was to list this article on VfD, series of new accounts follows. —RaD Man (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've been a user of various Wikis since 1999, and I find it ludicrous that I should need to justify myself. I'm logged in here under my natural name. I'm easily googleable, you can find my work history at SuSE, etc. You can find edits minor and discussive of mine on c2, the moin development wiki, and other such. I can't show you the logs of me reading throgh wikipedia policy, sorry! The view that this is non encyclopædic is not rooted in how many pages I've edited on Wikipedia, but rather in the obvious non-notability of this page. These bureaucratic slanderous ad-hominems are really more than I care to countenance. JoshuaRodman 07:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree.. this doesn't have much point Oman

1st edit. Account created July 18, 2005. See: Oman (talk · contribs) —RaD Man (talk)

• Delete Also agree. An IRC channel doesn't need a Wikipedia entry. Polpo 20:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1st edit. Account created July 18, 2005. See: Polpo (talk · contribs) —RaD Man (talk)

Add me to those angry at the sock puppet accusations. I have been "zsazs" on #trax for over ten years, was at the reunion, met RaD Man, and was interviewed by him. The fact that I created an account speaks that I am willing to stand by my opinion on deleting this entry. The channel in question as a whole obviously finds itself not wanting to be on Wikipedia. There are no other IRC channels that I can find on Wikipedia. The #trax Wikipedia entry is certainly a vanity article, albeit created by someone not within the regular community. Polpo 21:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-encyclopædic, non-notable. It's also difficult to corroborate the channel history. -- dr 20:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative and NPOV. This particular community tends to congregate in one specific place and has a unique history worthy of documentation. Sock puppet limit has been reached. —RaD Man (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See talk page for response to Sock puppet accusation. JoshuaRodman 19:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC) See below.

Informativeness and NPOV are not disputed, and the article would be suitable as an external reference from Tracker, MOD (file format), or Demoscene. But it is not notable or encyclopædic in its own right. -- dr 19:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An IRC channel where a couple dozen old friends talk to each other isn't an encyclopedic topic. Also, the above votes from first-editors are from people in the channel, which unanimously does not want to be in Wikipedia. I hope that's worth something. Foobaz·o< 19:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

*Merge as minor note into broader article. Some data belongs in a bigger article about mod or demoscene. Rad Man's claims of sock puppets are massively unfounded, offensive and rude. He has met most of us in person and interviewed us with his camcorder at T10Y. —RedPenguin 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

1st and only edit, not so unfounded. See: RedPenguin (talk · contribs) —RaD Man(talk)

Sure it was my first edit, that doesn't make me a sock puppet. At the very MOST it would make me a "meat puppet", if I didn't actually have some knowledge/relevance to this topic, which I do. Additionally, YOU INTERVIEWED ME ON CAMERA, Radman, therefore you should understand I exist. Would it help prove that I am not a sock puppet if I took a picture of myself with a sign so you could compare to the Trax 10 years pictures that it's me? Have you considered visiting scene.net #trax and talking to us to see that we're quite real? —RedPenguin 21:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete— After reviewing the timeline and the rest of the information on the page again I found it of not only questionable correctness (which I attempted to address) but of striking irrelevance. Therefore, I am changing my vote to delete. While an article on a community can be worthwhile, (consider The WELL) that is generally if the community itself generated or offered something of relevance. In this case, while many members of the community were computer musicians of some note, the community itself had overall little impact as anything other than a place where people chatted. Therefore the history of the channel is of no general interest, and instead, individual trackers should be considered in the context of a tracking article. If the argument can be made that #trax DID contribute something, then that should be the content of the trax article and not irrelevant information about schisms or the nationality of regulars. RedPenguin 22:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an IRC channel would have to be truly exceptional to be notable. Dcarrano 17:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, this discussion is not being helped by you Rad Man.
  1. You should be clearly indicating your bias as the author of the page.
  2. You are accusing these voters of being Sock Puppets, which is clearly defined as indicating pretend existances created solely by a single person for the purpose of falsely magnifying or hiding their influence. Since you are fully aware of the individual existence of each of these people, see for example: pictures of them taken at one of the events mentioned on the very article under discussion, you are either misusing terminology or simply lying. (Incidentally note RadMan's clear presence at the event.)
  3. I specifically went and read the voting policy before mentioning this vote to the sources which were used in the creation of this article. The policy makes no mention of voting being reserved for users or longstanding users. It makes a suggestion that it is better for the votes to be from logged in users. As a result I recommended to these people that they might want to create accounts. The rationale behind this suggestion in the voting guidelines was not given, so I was not able to surmise that it is "wrong" to vote as a new or non-user. In fact, the text rather suggests the opposite.
  4. These are not irrelevant humans who have no relation to this article. They are the sources who populated this article. As such they are the experts on this information, more so than you, the article author. The sources of your information, the actual experts on the topic, believe that the information is trivial and non-encyplopædic. They are weighing in with this opinion. I believe this is relevant.

JoshuaRodman 07:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I've created a user account for myself so you all would know who I am, know me as a relatively long-standing member of the #trax community, and not have to refer to me by IP address. As such I've reverted RadMan's comment re: the fifth edit associated with the IP, since I'm proud to say that the edits here are my first. I offer that the scant record of our collective previous contributions to Wikipedia is immaterial to the discussion. RadMan is well aware of the individuals contributing here, so all that's proven by mentioning our edit records is that we care enough about this topic to chime in. I feel that RadMan has done more to demonstrate his assumption that the very members of the community he strives to document are not acting in good faith here, than to demonstrate any concrete reasoning why the #trax entry conforms to Wikipedia's content guidelines. In particular: why should Wikipedia's admins consider this material is encyclopædic or notable? -- dr 18:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge should be filed under IRC or tracker or something; not a standalone subject. but really I don't understand what the fuss is about. who cares? radman, you're hardly even in #trax these days, I see nothing from you on the traxstats page in the last 16 days, so obviously you don't either. what am I missing? -- Tfinn

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

SampleMyGoods

Delete nn forumcruft TheMidnighters 19:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable (the article says it all: "as many as 150 users"). --PrologFan | Talk 19:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. Deb 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worth mentioning. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 08:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

CMS Encore Pro

Advertising for non-notable software. Interestingly, the first version of this page has a vfd tag which has been there ever since. --PrologFan | Talk 19:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Convenient, I guess... delete, ad for non-notable software. Dcarrano 23:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 delete. Snowspinner 04:21, July 28, 2005

This page was transwikied to b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Half-Blood Prince. Comments made after closing have been moved to the talk page.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

It copies information all ready existing in the synopsis on the main Half-Blood Prince page. All other information on this page was deemed unnecessary for the main page. Might also be a copyright violation, since it is in essence a condensed version of the book itself rather than a mere summary. Deridolus 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Closing admin should note the vast number of sockpuppet, anonymous, and new-user voters turning up here, as well as attempts to alter people's votes. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation: copyright doesn't cover ideas, reviews or summuries. It covers just plain text. 12:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyright does cover derivative works, including condensations.

Votes made logged in

• Strong keep. Useful
• Strong keep The controversy over the attempt to prevent Canadian purchasers of the book from reading their own books, and the resulting protest by way of posting the plot on the internet, is of legitimate interest as a recent event which deserves historical preservation in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not take sides, but it should record the historical facts. --Kasreyn
  • This plot was not a result of that. It was formed after the books were published. At any rate, mentions of those can be kept in the article. — 131.230.109.211 03:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This controvery is dealt with in the main article. The plot synopsis in the main article is perfectly adequate -- if a reader wants to know more, they can read the book. I vote for deletion. The purpose of an encycloedia is not to store a full plot synopsis for every book, film, play, etc, ever published or produced. --Urbane legend 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Useful, fair, and fair use. --Arcadian 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles. Bollar 20:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative and useful. --Sanguinus 20:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if the main article get's too large, then just fork it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Come on now. David | Talk 21:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Harry Potter (plot) — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum - Harry Potter (plot) should contain a summary, not full plot, of the story. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep'- Deleting of this is limiting free access to information.--Sina 22:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. This isn't public domain information, it's the full plot of a copyrighted book!--Urbane legend 14:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Either this article needs to go, or the plot "summary" in the main article needs to be pared down (since this makes it entirely unnecessary). -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.Capitalistroadster 23:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Very useful? The plot summary on the main page for Half-Blood Prince is very useful. This is just over-indulgence. And I'm not at all certain that placing nearly the entire contents of the story in an article is kosher with regards to copyright laws. If it's useful like you say, its only use would be to make reading the book unnecessary. Is wikipedia an encylopedia or an online version of Cliffnotes, to paraphrase someone from the Half-Blood Prince talk page?--Deridolus 23:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum - failing deletion, it needs to at the very least be pruned a good deal and merged back in with the original article.--Deridolus 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, preferably speedily, and rename. The original article is too long as it is; that's why this was spun out into its own article. JYolkowski // talk 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, but only if the more descriptive version of each chapter is the one that is used, otherwise Keep. - Steggall 02:46 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page does serve a different purpose to other pages with plot summaries. This page should optimally contain 32 kB of text summarising the plot; Harry Potter (plot) should summarise the plot of all 6 books so far in 32 kB and the actual book article should simply have a brief, 15-line plot summary, focussing on other aspects of impact, etc. --Oldak Quill 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is an international phenomenon and is fair use. Keep Wiki's chapter by chapter summary separate. It serves as a service on a subject where so much conjucture and half truth exists elsewhere. --Kcswampfox 05:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  User has 4 edits, all related to this book. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  So what? Stop pointing out how few edits people have, as if it completely devalues their vote. If the comment is insightful or useful, what does it matter? This is not helping the discussion. royblumy 16:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this doesn't fit with naming conventions... at the very least it should probably be moved, although I'm not sure exactly where. This may be overdoing it, though... --L33tminion (talk) 05:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are no other full chapter summaries for any of the other HP books, and there need not be one for this entry either. A short book summary should suffice. --Could

  User has 11 edits. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a full exposition of the entire plot of the Harry Potter saga at Harry Potter (plot): this article will be merged into that one once it is safe to do so (unless obviously the full plot is split up into separate articles for each book for size). €”Phil | Talk 08:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Phil. This is not a condensed version of the book, unless it is reusing most of its phrases directly from the book, so I doubt that the copyright argument above has any merit.-gadfium 08:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not doing any harm whatsoever. The creation of a summary is covered under fair use. -koolman2 09:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. (summary) rather than -Full Plot Summary. Radiant_>|< 10:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- for now, but name it plot summary instead of full plot summary and link the content from the title's main article instead of having plot summaries of different lengths in two different articles --Mysidia 12:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I personally don't think that something this detailed is really necessary for an encylopedia article. How much is enough? One 32kb article per chapter? OTOH, the existence of a bloated article like this may be enough to prevent well-intentioned fans from bloating up the main Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which really was getting too unwieldy with all these unnecessary details. --Deathphoenix 13:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Harry Potter (plot), as mentioned by others. I like this option, and it's been done before. --Deathphoenix 03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep-- I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book. Whoever started this I commend you. Pacific Coast Highway 15:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Please keep this. I think it is a valuable resource and a great companion for anyone who is really interested in this Harry Potter book. It does no harm and if it can not be kept, than it should be merged with the main article. I stand strongly by my opinion. --Cameron 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think that this should be kept for now - it may well be pared down over time though.Rubextablet 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that people aren't voting according to the rules. What we should be voting on is whether or not this is encyclopaedic and belongs on Wikidedia. In my view, it doesn't fit either requirement. There's no precedent on Wikipedia for this type of super-detailed, chapter-by-chapter synopsis and it just goes overboard in my opinion. If you can't afford to buy the book, you can borrow it from a library or a friend or wait until the movie comes out on TV. Wikipedia is not here to provide free e-books. My vote is to delete with prejudice--meaning that we don't want to set a precedent here; the brief overviews/synopses we have for other major works (including The Satanic Verses, Huck Finn, Pride and Prejudice, and even the other Harry books) are plenty. Exploding Boy 16:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Tentative Keep Exploding Boy raises legitimate points. If the chapter by chapter plot summary can be argued to remain on Wikipedia then by all means remain. Personal opinion though, I find it extremely useful to find what each chapter is about, a sort of... table of contents if you will. --takagawa-kun 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with the arguments for Keep. Jonathunder 17:41, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
• Keep for a few weeks, then Delete. While it's not exactly encyclopedic, we'd be chasing clones all over the place. In a few more weeks, it will be old news and it can be either deleted or moved to a user page. Donovan Ravenhull 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepOf course it won't be. It is of permanent interest, and it was created by many users, not one. CalJW 19:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is completely different from the main article! --Skuld^{‡ insult} 20:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of votes as of now. 25 keep, 3 Merge, 4 delete. Keeping the article holds firm majority --takagawa-kun 19:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Excessively long and detailed plot summaries are just not appropriate. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to strong delete (not that it makes any difference) due to the potential that this is a very risky copyvio (see discussion below). My original comments about the unsuitability of this 'article' for an encyclopedia still stand. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, until it can be satisfactorily merged with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, then redirect or delete. Hermione1980 22:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after a few weeks. Supporters are fanatics. I'm sure the majority are kids. Please, if you want to read a super-long summary, go and read the book. Why deprive yourself of the pleasure? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book summary network. And it's not a network to provide free plot details for those who simply don't want to buy the book. Exploding Boy's point is well taken. Mandel 22:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A brief summary of the plot is fair use. A detailed description of pretty much every significant event is a copyright violation. ed g2s • talk 23:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is copyvivio, then we don't even need to vote on it. Quote from Wikipedia's fair use article: "Conversely, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985), the use of less than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a news magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial." Mandel 23:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't even close to copyvio. In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the defendent copied verbatim "the most interesting and moving parts of the entire manuscript." The proper analogy would be if we had a page where we copied the pages with the murder in Chapter 27. But I don't think I see any quotes longer than six words long on the entire page. Here's 471 U.S. 539, the case referenced, for context. (Disclaimer: IANAL) --Arcadian 01:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • How about this: in Twin Peaks Productions v. Publications International (91 Civ. 0626, S.D.N.Y., November 1991) the District Court found a book publisher guilty for infringing a film's copyright after it produced substantial detailed summaries in which it "paraphrased substantial portions". The conclusion of the court? "A detailed summary of plot constitutes an abridgment that exceeds what is required to serve any legitimate purpose". If Rowling files a lawsuit, I'll like to see people who voted 'keep' chip in. Mandel 05:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
        • In fact, arguments like "i don't have time to read the book so this told me exactly what happened saving me time" and "I don't have 30 bucks, nor the time to read the book" (I'm not picking on anyone, I'm just saying what was said before) pretty much would make their case. Maybe I sound paranoid, but this page could be presented as an exhibit in Rowling v. Wikimedia Foundation or a similar case that no one wants to see. I change my vote to strong delete. --Titoxd 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge with main article in a few weeks when the whole mania has died off.--TexasDex 00:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Harry Potter (plot), after six books I think it would be easy to follow the pattern -Acjelen 00:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't CliffsNotespedia. tregoweth 00:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to say that Exploding Boy is right on. tregoweth 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep

--Potatoeman57

• This is just a lawsuit waiting to happen. The book hasn't been for sale for a week, and basically, we're providing a way to find out what happens in the book without having to buy it. The only thing that Scholastic has to do is to prove that customers didn't have to read the book because this article was too detailed, and they'll be more than happy to file suit for lost revenues. I strongly urge caution when dealing with things that could financially hurt Wikipedia, as is the case with this article, and I vote to delete(read above), or at a bare minimum, summarize, at least for now. --Titoxd 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if not a copyvio. —Ashley Y 02:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't see any problem with copyright, but this is not encyclopedia. Why don't all these Harry Potter fans set up a Wikicity where this kind of article would be far more appropriate--nixie 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). None of the other books (and I don't just mean Harry Potter here) has an article like this. If you want to know what happens in this much detail, read the book. Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What harm does it do where it is? There are several works of fiction that receive just as thorough treatment in Wikipedia. Here is a whole article dedicated to a single chapter of one book: Mark 16. — David Remahl 03:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Errr, that's a book of the Bible, this is Harry Potter.... — Trilobite (Talk) 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is interesting and does not provide enough information as to completely take away the point of reading the book. Heru Jameson 03:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC) Heru Jameson
• Comment: I agree completely. I've read through the entire summary, and just got the book today, and started reading it. The summary only provides the main parts of the book, and none of the back-story or hidden clues. By the way, three of the other books in this series have similar LONG plot summaries, although they aren't chapter-by-chapter: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. -koolman2 04:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge with Harry Potter (plot). For now, let's keep it for everyone to edit the most important plot points in and useless stuff out. I agree with Exploding Boy, this is an encyclopedia and the rules must be upheld.--Janarius 04:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As tregoweth unintentionally pointed out, this is no more copyvio than Cliffs' Notes is. Nightwatch 07:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of the works that Cliffs'Notes deal with are out of copyright. The argument used many times is that this article is useful. Useful for what? Mandel 08:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • My point was, Wikipedia currently doesn't contain super-detailed summaries of books, and that there's no reason to start now. tregoweth 15:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge with Half-Blood Prince I see no reason for books and movies to have separate summary pages. If you want to get that detailed, use outside links, such as with all three of the Lord of the Rings pages, which have succinct summaries in 3 paragraphs or so. It would be one thing if this summary included detailed analysis of themes or something like that, but it's just a blow by blow, completely unencyclopedic. James 08:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge per James. There is nothing notable here which a short summary could not accomplish -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I feel that we need to inform a higher authority, eg. the Board of Trustees about this. If a copyvio lawsuit could potentially occur, it's only fair that those people who are truly involved be informed, not us lay Wikipedians. If they decide to delegate the final judgment to us, then the decision of this VfD will suffice. Mandel 11:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted, however I would like to second the above. Voting should never take priority over the legal status of WP, and if the Board feels that this article constitutes a copyvio sufficient to initiate legal action, then it should be removed post-haste. Personally, I feel that it is questionable, and would seek the publisher's permission at a minimum (which is unlikely to be granted). -Harmil 14:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. If this is a copyvio, Harry Potter is such a vast money-making empire that I have a suspicion we could be at great risk of a lawsuit. The board should be informed, and with a bit of luck they will decreee that it needs deleting on legal grounds. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Usually, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution (we're not permitted to use logos of other encyclopedias anywhere on the 'pedia, even if they do constitute fair use) because no one wants a costly lawsuit that could shut the entire project down. Maybe someone should tell Jimbo Wales about this. --Titoxd 20:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unofficially, since I've not consulted with the rest of the Board about it, I'd advise listening to Michael Snow, who has made some comments at the end of this page. He is a member of the Wikimedia legal department. The chances are, if you formally asked the board to comment, we'd pass on the request to juriwiki and Michael would be the one replying on our behalf anyway, so condensing the content and deleting the article is likely the Board's preferred option. Angela (disclaimers) 06:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Angela and Michael. If this article (which interest is questionnable) is a copyvio, then it should just be deleted. It does not have much interest to ask to permission to the editor, because if permission is ever granted, it will be for wikipedia only and not others. This is not really within our mission. I'd support condensing and deleting the article just as well. This is most of the time what is done with interesting copyvio content and there is no valid reason for this case to be different. Anthere 09:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Plot summaries to address the issue of summaries in general. I think we definitely need a policy on this, especially if there are legal ramifications. James 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge to whichever page is deemed most appropriate. I'm not so worried about its encyclopedic value, more the copyright problems of placing such a large derivative work online. — Asbestos | Talk 15:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge; as it is, this is legally... dodgy. James F. (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but reduce to 32K A slight modification of my previous vote. I've put in a request at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Book_summaries for to get guidance. To make sure we're all on the same page, right now the summary is 8235 words, 50 kilobytes, and approximately 4% of the source text. As you know if you've read above, I support the existence of this page, but I'll agree that the page is too long as is. If I had to say where I'd draw the line, in my opinion, the 32 kilobyte page limit (about 5000 words) seems like a natural and sustainable solution. If you're voting to delete because of copyvio concerns because the summary is too long, please indicate approximately what length of summary constitutes copyvio in your opinion. --Arcadian 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Somewhat strong delete. My eternal hatred of Harry Potter not withstanding, there is absolutely no need for such a redundant article on wikipedia. This is not a summary, it's a freaking rewrite. We can all go and buy the book if we wanted, or borrow from a friend if we can't afford it. -Hmib 16:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge as stated above. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge. Way too long and detailed. Hansamurai 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and condense; however, all legal issues should take precedence over this VfD. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep -- ridiculous that this is even on vfd. dont like the detail? try editing. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, not close to copyvio. Definite fair use -- see episode guides at snpp.com for fair use summaries of simpsons episodes much more comprehensvive of these chapters. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What makes you think they haven't had permission from Fox to do such a thing? Mandel 03:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• delete -- not remotely a copyright violation, but also not encyclopedic. Let the fansites have this, and link to it, if you'd like.Shmuel 22:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Considering that this summarises the book in less time than it takes to read a chapter in the real book I cannot see where the arguments that this is a copyright violation come from. I would say this is fair use and gives a better insight than the synopsis on the book's main page. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to condense and merge - If people are linking to this as a substiture for the book then my thoughts on the subject were clearly wrong. --Colin Angus Mackay
• Transwiki [to Wikibooks]. We is NOT CliffsNotes, but "they" could be. This is NOT encyclopedic. Read my lips: NOT encyclopedic. To all voters, please read the debate at What Wikipedia is not:Wikipedia is not a spoilerroom, or wikipedia is not cliff notes. strong delete as copyright infringement as explained above. I can see I could read this summary and never buy the book at all, and that is certainly not in the publisher's best interests, and they have every legal right to sue the crap out of us. I withdraw my transwikiing suggestion; this is not a study guide, it's a condensed rip! Garrett^Talk 01:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

reminder to Garret and to others who share his perspective -- I just want to remind you that if you truly believe this page should be speedy deleted, that the process for doing that is as Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which is distinct from the process we're supposed to be using on this page. --Arcadian 02:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, indeed! I was meaning strong delete, but I don't know why I said that. Thanks for the reminder though. I wish I could say what I mean instead of just meaning what I say... :) Garrett^Talk 02:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this should be speedied (at the moment), as we have no precedent for processing of non-verbatim copyvios, but I do hope that the result of this Vfd will lead to a discussion about it and clarification of the CSD so that we have a definitive answer in case this sort of thing comes up again. Garrett^Talk 02:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Revise Treat it like any other article, there should be no exception.
• Condense (greatly!) and merge with main Half-Blood Prince page, then Delete this as copyright infringement; it's far too detailed and obviously derivative for fair use to be applicable in this case. Ken 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we can have the ridiculous Atlas Shrugged articles, we can have this. Neutrality^talk 03:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • *secretly decides to look through those and mercilessly merge/Vfd...* Garrett^Talk 10:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense the content and contain it within the article about the book proper. Then change any links to go there and delete this article, since nobody will think to go to such an article name on their own. --Michael Snow 04:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - copyvio considerations, and even if there weren't, it's not remotely encyclopedic. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 10:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly informative. The potential for copyvio should be investigated but it seems similar to many other plot summary articles on WP. I didn't realize so many wikipedia users are either lawyers or are unfamiliar with the "I am not a lawyer" caveat. zen master T 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but is it encyclopedic? THAT is the question this Vfd was to answer. Summaries as part of an (encyclopedic) article are fine, but when the summary stands on its own is it still part of the encyclopedia ideal? Garrett^Talk 12:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this VfD is asking more questions than just "is it encyclopedic?", most deleters seem to be arguing it's a copyvio. I believe the full plot summary was moved to its own article so the main article would have as few spoilers as possible and also for size considerations. In my interpretation, the size of a plot summary is likely to be in direct proportion to both the size of the book/thing being summarized and the hype surrounding a release. They key word in most definitions of the word "encyclopedia" I've seen is "comprehensive", though I am all for succinct summarization at a language level generally but in this case I think everything included is relevant. Feel free to clean it up without removing clarity yourself. zen master T 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't be sarcastic. That Wikipedians are not lawyers is not a good enough reason to forestall a pending lawsuit. And Michael Snow is a lawyer. Read what Angela (who is part of the Board) has to say above. Mandel 13:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • I suggested an investigation should be undertaken, if it is determined by someone official that the plot summary content should be removed then someone official should remove it regardless of this vote. But until then, legal considerations that don't fit within a defined area of wikipedia policy are orthogonal from a standard vote for deletion and discussion of the issues by the wikipedia community. Have Harry Potter publishers actually threatened a lawsuit? Would some consideration of the merits, rather than just the threat, of a lawsuit be undertaken prior to the removal of any content? zen master T 14:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Is already being discussed above. Precedent lawsuits have been mentioned and the Board is being informed, if you care to follow. Mandel 14:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
            • There is obviously no consensus to delete this article amongst the ostensibly non lawyer wikipedia user base. If the board is going to decide are you saying this VfD discussion is unnecessary? How am I not following exactly, are you a lawyer? zen master T 15:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Your suggestions are already being undertaken. And yes, if the Board intervenes then this VfD becomes unnecessary. But until then, please stick to explaining why this article ought to be left alone instead of taunting other Wikipedians about their legal concerns. How is a chapter-by-chapter summary "more relevant" than a shorter summary? In what way is it "useful" to remain in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia? Mandel 16:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok good, I thought for a minute you were saying voting and discussion should cease here because the Board of Directors has been summoned. Anyway, isn't the burden of proof on the pro delete crowd to prove (or for the b.o.d to determine) that the article is unworthy of wikipedia since it doesn't obviously violate any wikipedia policies? The chapter by chapter summary seems to be relevant to the overall plot of what happens in a lengthy book, though regardless I fail to see how excessive summary length means we should delete it (or drastically reduce it after merging back). Putting full plot summary details in its own article for the purpose of keeping spoilers separate was a good idea. zen master T 17:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Half-Blood Prince does not contain fewer spoilers; the plot there is merely more condense. James 17:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd say that is way fewer spoilers, though it does give away the big kahuna spoiler. I may be wrong but I think at one point all spoilers were moved to the full plot summary article, size was obviously a concern too. The spoilers in H. B. P. probably should be moved to the bottom of that article to keep them as separate as possible. What you call a condense summary Harry Potter fans would likely call way too condense. zen master T 18:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote to merge and condense. If Angela and Michael Snow feel that's the right choice, then that's good enough to persuade me. --Arcadian 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete per above. After reading all of the comments, this seems like the most sensible solution, particularly considering the opinions of Angela and Michael. royblumy 16:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The harry Potter series is an important phenomenon, but its importance does not revolve around a chapter-by-chapter summary of the plot of an individual book in the series. This is fancruft and does not belong in a reputable encyclopedia. Indrian 17:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I don't personally like it, but in my opinion it is encyclopedic. -- DocSigma 20:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can't believe there is evenan argument over taking it off temporarily. Why would someone come here and read a full outline obviously marked SPOILER if they did not want to be spoiled. I read it, and yet it doesn't make me want to NOT buy the book. Infact, I have been teased with a little info, now I MUST have more. As long as there is no copyright infringment (and it seems as though there isn't as this is not WORK FOR WORD and is pretty much fair use so why all the fuss?) Some people enjoy being spoiled. I for one would have no problem if someone wanted to do this to any book. It would only make me want to read the original even more! --Janjsalmon

  User has 2 edits. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Putting aside the copyright infringement question, a lot of you seem to be missing a major point: Encyclopedias do not generally contain lengthy synopses of any novel. If they did, they would probably be much older than this past Saturday. tregoweth 22:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not your average encyclopaedia. It does not have the size concern. If a long synopsis is useful it should be here. If it would be more useful if condensed, then so be it. — David Remahl 01:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Condense: While I don't see this as a copyright infringement, it is longer than the length for articles regulate and should be shorten and possibly renamed. It is not a substitute for the book itself but it is immensely helpful for those who wish to be informed on the major plot points. It is rather a bit longer than other summaries for each book. While I would like the other summaries lengthened, this one has not only the major plot points but some of the minor plot points as well. It should be condensed by at least 3 page lengths especially when other books in the series which are much longer and not nearly this well expanded on. It should be proportionate to the size of the original condensing to approximately 2-5% of the original book length and 5-10% but not to exceed 15 pages printed materials in regular Times New Roman 12pt font if not newly released. SakuraLei 23:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  User has 1 edit. --Michael Snow 06:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. May need cleanup, but it doesn't fit deletion tests: it is notable, it can easily be cleaned up to eliminate copyright violations, it's not orphaned, ad infinitum. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:08, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
• Delete, and send the editors to bed without any supper. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not CliffsNotes. --Kevin Myers 04:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. People voting keep has been circumventing the question. The argument is that this summary is "useful", but they fail to indicate exactly what it is useful for. Mandel 05:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason that a plot summary cannot be as long as the contributors wish to make it. The amount of interest in this book certainly justifies a longer article. As for the copyright paranoia, I can think of few things that are less likely to be sued than a scholarly synopsis with very few quotes for an encyclopedia based in a country other than the author's.  The Steve  06:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Summaries are useful - see reference books such as Oxford Companion to English Literature. And why should Wikipedia not include elements of Cliff Notes? Understanding literature is as rewarding as understanding history or engineering.--Silver149 08:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Understanding literature is one thing, but this article doesn't further understanding of the literature, just lists what happens. James 08:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it does more than just list, it relates book 6 to previous books in the series and the overall plot and points out where fans had assumed incorrectly about what might happen and it also notes things like semi-popular characters getting a smaller role etc. zen master T 08:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
      • You don't need a super-long summary to point it out. And Oxford companions provide summaries, but not such long summaries (at least ten times the length of any in the reference book). Mandel 11:32, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • The chapter by chapter organization seems to make it easier for the entire community to participate in the summarization process. How long should the article be in your view, 2/3rds current size, half, 1/10th, deletion = 0? Perhaps complaints about the length of an article should be discussed on its talk page rather than nominated for deletion. zen master T 11:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
        • There's already a perfectly good summary of the right length at Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as mentioned Deridolus. So "delete" is the right word. Mandel 12:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
          • That seems way too short to me, that isn't a summary, not enough core context, it basically just gives away the ending. The HP phenomenon seems to be about the overall story of what happens, and what happens to the characters, rather than just the ending of each book. Also, summarizes should probably be in some proportion to the size of the book being summarized and HP books are actually quite lengthy. zen master T 12:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
            • IMHO, not more than 1,000 words. And that's erring on the lengthy side. At present the sypnosis at the main article is about 400 words. Mandel 12:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even remotely encyclopedic. This ain't Television Without Pity. --Calton | Talk 12:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I found the article useful before already. --SeizureDog 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEPWhile those who have suggested that this is not encyclopedic have a strong point than those who cry "copyright violation", this entry is more of a "Cliffs Note" version of the book and in my opinion falls right along with other encyclopedic works. If anything, condense this in time so that it fits with the general "Harry Potter" article. Definitely don't delete this.--Dapresw17:00, 22 July 2005 (EDT)
• Condense and Merge to the most appropriate page. CheekyMonkey 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to the Wikibook which was just created for the purpose: Harry Potter plots. — Olathe 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE, obviously. This really shouldn't even be a matter of debate; I'm surprised and a bit concerned that anyone is voting "keep." I couldn't care less about copyright law, but this is just plain unencyclopedic and sets a very bad precedent. --Tothebarricades 03:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep. 1) I'd rename the article to have it conform to wikipedia title standards (full plot summary should not be capitalized). 2) I'd expand the article (or create new ones) to include indepth literary analysis of the characters, setting, plot (covered?), metaphor, style, etc. I'd use cliff's (cole's in Canada) notes as a basic template and an work towards more academic works which are literary analysises. I think it a mistake to believe that literary analysis (in this case taking the form of plot analysis) is unencyclopedic - afaik English is an academic course in most English speaking universities ;). --ShaunMacPherson 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless the length exceeds copyright law. --Tim Pope 08:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP 1. this is not a copyright violation by any means. 2. people obviously want to read this. i do. 3. the lesser synopsis is dreadfully uninforming. 4. a full synopsis like this is of great value to anyone either studying the book, reminding themselves of it, or looking up something (especially considering the introduction of a lot of harry-potter references into popular speech). 5. it's not actually THAT huge. --alfakim 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 19:25, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If it is too long, then condense it. --billlund 22:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it! Enochlau 13:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, merge / rename if necessary. Harry Potter is not merely a series of books, it has now reached critical mass and become a cultural event. --Bluejay Young 13:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For all reasons stated above. --Matjlav 19:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons stated; otherwise, it could do with some improvement. H.J.Potter 20:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge to the appropriate page. Stand-alone plot summaries are not encyclopedic and do not belong in Wikipedia. I support the book purchaser's right to use the book in any way he or she sees fit, including posting plot summaries on the internet, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. That's what blogs are for. The Hokkaido Crow 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Useful, and fair use.--Prem 03:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and extend plot summary at Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Overly long, possible violation of copyrights, but if shortened and edited appropriatly it would be acceptable for the main page.
  • above vote entered by NeoChrono Ryu at 06:32 on July 25, 2005 €”Phil | Talk 11:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and merge with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Sue
• Delete not enzyklopedic. -guety is talking english bad 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and possible copyvio. --Carnildo 03:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep fair use indeed applies and the summary is a useful informational tool. Should it be merged? I don't know. - --TPB 17:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fair Use guidelines absolutely do not apply in a case like this (suddenly every one here claims to be an intellectual property attorney or something without understanding the basic concepts of the law), and the article is excessive and pointless to begin with. This level of detail is highly nonnotable, unencyclopedic and crufty. DreamGuy 03:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hack-o-rama. A complete summary is NOT an encyclopedia article, really. Now, if somebody can include the larger significance (Hagrid, who the critic Kenneth Tynan has shown to be a metaphor for overweight homosexuals, trips over a stone at the beginning of chapter six, signifying the dissolution of traditional marriage in Canada), then we might keep it. Aren't there any fan sites for you people to post this much stuff? DavidH 04:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Votes made without logging in

• Merge with Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, just to be consistent with previous Harry Potter Novel Entries. (Unsigned from 65.12.173.53)
• KEEP. Very Usefull. --User:Sabel4 (account has one contribution, on July 5)
• Keep, Do NOT merge soon, as the entire artical is a spoiler and people looking for information on the book itself and not plot twists could eisily wind up knowing much more than they wanted if it was put on the same page as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince--RobLance // talk 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (account has no edits)
• Stronger keep Useful, fair and i don't have time to read the book so this told me exactly what happened saving me time.... KEEP KEEP KEEP!
• Delete this crap. (unsigned from 68.192.171.208 who also deleted a number of votes above, since restored)
• "PLEASE KEEP" at least for a little bit. The information is wonderful and the links to everything else I wanted to re-check saved me days of work. Thank you for it, and PLEASE KEEP. Thank you.
• Keep This is great work and very informative -- thanks to who ever did this
• Stronger keep Please keep, it's a great resource!
• Strong keep. Useful, fair, and fair use. --Arnthony 20:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (account has no edits)
• Strong keep People are already linking to it. [15] 66.92.237.111 04:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the link touts it as a substitute for the book itself ("The whole plot is now summarized in a Wikipedia page. If you feel you simply have to know what happens in the book, you can read that, instead of buying the book.") Which is not helpful if we're defending against a charge of copyright infringement, because if the summary is an adequate substitute it's not likely to be fair use. --Michael Snow 04:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That page is part of Richard Stallman's rant against the Canadian Injunction: he's trying to persuade people not to buy the books. I see no reason why someone else's venom should dictate what articles we should or should not have on Wikipedia. So if someone campaigning against Scientology points to our article on Xenu saying "read it at Wikipedia rather than buy it from LRH", you think we should delete that article? €”Phil | Talk 11:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but doesn't one have to be virtually brainwashed first before you get the Xenu book from the Scientologists? If that is the case then I couldn't get buy it first with out being subjected to a process I don't want. In comparison HP:HBP is freely (as in freedom, not cost) available just about everywhere. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • To make determinations of copyright status based on how sites other than Wikipedia chose to characterize the article in links is to forfeit control over Wikipedia to every web page author on the web.--kcswampfox
• keep please
• This article is similar to the detailed plot summaries for different works like movies, etc. There is no reason to treat this differently. I vote for a Strong Keep

I have yet to see an article with so detailed a summary. For instance, compare to Fellowship of the Ring. Could you please point me to a summary even remotely as detailed? James 08:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tl n, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, Atlas Shrugged, The Bible, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy among others.  The Steve  03:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Tl n, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' summary is a detailed analysis of the themes and topics involved, not a chronological detailing of events. Atlas Shrugged has no plot summary on Wikipedia, only character, place, theme, etc. analysis. I agree that there is probably considerably more written in Wikipedia on Atlas Shrugged than Harry Potter, but it is in-depth, not merely a recounting of events. The Bible is the most influential book ever written, and as such it receives a special status. In some instances I think the Bible articles could be trimmed down, anyway. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy summaries are miniscule in comparison to this one. The opening volume of the series is summarized by a mere 290 words, even shorter than the "short" summary at Half-Blood Prince. James 04:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would like this article to be less summary and more analysis, but such things are generally encyclopedic? Great! I look forward to seeing your improvements. There have been many calls for condensation in any case, but that should be discussed somewhere other than VfD.  The Steve  04:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would be completely in favor of such content. However, that content would belong in the Half-Blood Prince page, and not in a separate, full plot summary page. So this page should still be deleted. --Titoxd 05:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete-temporaily Considering the popularity of the book, at least give a month breathing time so others can spend the time reading the book without giving away any pertanent information.
• I disagree with the copyright arguments. It is legal to photocopy 25% of a work and this article sumarizes the plot in much less space than 25% of the book. Furthermore, I disagree with the non-encyclopedic nature of this article arguments. I beleive that the mere fact that the article exists is an interesting social commentary in and of itself and highly academically useful. I believe that BOTH the article and the discussion should be saved indefinately. Moreover, as Wikipedia is an opt-in set up (that is people have intentionally choose to access information from the site) I don't believe it harms anyone who wishes to read the full text of the story themselves. Rather, people can exercise their own disciple and choose not to read this article. That is what the spoiler warning at the top is for. I vote KEEP and ARCHIVE Forever (and link to this discussion) SkyJamer
• It is most certainly NOT legal to photocopy 25% of a copyrighted work that is in print. There is no hard and fast guideline, but most publishers will not allow more than 10-15% of an in-print work to be reprinted even if you were to pay them royalties; printing even that much without even asking for permission would almost certainly be seen as a copyright violation. Copyright law, including what does and does not constitute fair use, is an extremely complex subject, and cannot be summarized by blanket statements like "you can reprint this percent without permission". LGE
• Kip. I zink zat eet ees vairry impeurtant to haff sumsing like zis to edd reeders. Zoo you not aggree? Ze Haff-Blot Prinz 15:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please --Brianb

• Very Strong keep. This is an extensive summary, not a brief one. It would be too too big if it was combined with the main article. -- Jason Palpatine 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a record?

On a lighter note, many people have expressed a desire to delete the page because it is too long, and is currently up to 52K. However, when you add up the size of its VFD page plus its talk page, the size is now 78K. Remarkably, though, the discussion has been mostly civil, and with very little vandalism. Whenever this topic gets closed, I'd be curious to see if this has the highest legitimate vote total of any VfD ever. --Arcadian 03:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While browsing Wikipedia, I ran across Fiction in Wikipedia, which deals with the topic of extensive plot summaries, among many other things. I note that the section on plot summaries was added a couple of days ago (by someone who voted Keep here, btw), but it seems like a reasonable approach to follow. Ken 14:10, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. After discarding voters with insufficient experience (I go by one month and 100 edits, with a reasonable proportion of article edits) there are two votes to keep and one vote two votes to delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Antonia Bance

Delete: came 3rd in the General Election — not elected, not ever been elected, not a local councillor, not ever been a local councillor, not notable. Has only had a minor committee position for a year in her student's union (not the same thing as the Oxford Union debating society). -Splash 20:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, plenty young enough to become notable in politics but isn't yet based on above accomplishments. Dcarrano
• Delete - nn. JesseW 00:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'll note that I have a significant conflict of interest in that I know the former candidate. The article could do with some expansion considering that she is more prominent in the Labour Party than the article suggests.--New Progressive 18:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you verify that with external references? If you can, it should go in the article. -Splash 01:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - New Progressive is on the ball here, though I too know Antonia personally. Expanding the article with more on the labour Party side would be good. Timrollpickering 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches and Sects

Either original research or a copyright violation, although I can't find the source online. Sarge Baldy 20:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Please investigate it - it looks a little like a copyvio. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either way, essay/nonencyclopedic. Dcarrano 00:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay. JamesBurns 08:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting, perhaps encyclopaedic, but almost certainly a copy violation (unless the author pops up very quickly and clears it incontrovertibly!) Peter Ellis 04:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research/POV fork of the various existing articles. ~~~~ 07:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep all. For future reference, please note that I would never consider deleting scores of articles in a category on the basis of a single VfD, unless those articles seriously damaged wikipedia (in which case I'd summarily delete them all). Please exercise restraint in nominations. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Tekken characters articles

This is an umbrella Vfd concerning the articles listed under Category:Tekken characters. To vote on the category, go here.

There is no need for a page per character. As a List of Tekken characters page already exists, these subpages should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradBeattie (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 July 2005

• Redirect to List of Tekken characters. KeithD 20:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

*Please take this to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion Flowerparty 20:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to interpret this as a blanket VfD for all the articles in the category. It is with reluctance, that I fear I must vote keep all despite what I really think. -Splash 21:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Apologies, I seem to have misinterpreted the vote. If so, then I abstain. Flowerparty 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all, the List of Tekken characters page has became too long (and is still growing), and some contents are being moved to pages from Category:Tekken characters. --surueña 22:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is not the Categories for deletion page. Dcarrano 00:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Like I said, the nomination sounds like it's intended for all the articles in the cat, rather than the cat itself. It's not a very standard way to do things, but I think that's what was meant.-Splash 00:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That's inappropriate though IMO, due to lack of notice. For instance, a visitor to the Tiger Jackson page has no way to know that that page is currently up for VfD. Dcarrano 00:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, good point. I guess an admin can close it as inappropriately executed on such a large scale. It's turned up on CfD now too. -Splash 01:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I have now given proper notice by adding a VfD tag to all the articles in this category not already separately nominated. DES 07:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Either way, keep. Radiant_>|< 10:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify, this is a blanket VfD for all of the associated pages. I didn't get around to VfDing each of them, although someone else has already begun a vote on Christie Monteiro.
  • And I added proper VfD tags, see above. DES 07:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• No one is deleting this page. it rocks. there other pages that have characters lists and a category for the characters. This should be no different.--Dangerous-Boy
• Delete All There is no good reason for separate articels for these characters. DES 06:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all. We have Mortal Kombat (like Liu Kang) and Street Fighter characters (like Blanka) articles, so, I don't see any reason to delete Tekken characters articles, but not the other fighting games character articles. --Carioca 07:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all Although other fictional chars have been deleted in the past, there are still quite a few of them with valid articles. Assuming each article has a video game story/history, might as well keep them. ∞Who?¿? 07:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All - For one thing, this is a continuing work in progress, and this deletion is coming in the middle of it all. The pages need to be worked on but not summarily deleted. Wikipedia is conducive to expanding its knowledge, and you can't fit absolutely everything about these characters onto one page. People have tried, and it only gets really messy and far beyond the recommended size of an article. Many people have been working hard to demonstrate the lengthy stories and characteristics of these games, but they're more complex than is suitable for a single page, and if each character is given an individual page, not only will there be boundless room for expansion as the series progress, but the article can serve its purpose: to teach people what they want to know. And besides, people will eventually get into strategy sections too, which will make this all the more worthwhile. Nothing should be deleted. Seriously, though, what does it hurt? (Edit: Sorry, I forgot my user name, which is Shackleton.)
• Strong keep, both on the category and several individual articles (Jin Kazama, for example). Some of the individual character pages include a lot of information, and consolidating such pages with every other Tekken character article would look (a) horrendous and (b) disorganised. If Hermione Granger can exist (and she's not even the protagonist of the Harry Potter series), Jin Kazama deserves to exist. jglc | t | c 13:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All - Videogames Character are like actors in movies, the knowlegde given buy those article help to understand the game storylineCyberboz.)
  • Comment - video game characters are the equivalent of characters in movies, not the actors. Characters from either of these mediums seldom have the potential to become encyclopedic. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 19:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All for Characters with significant backstory, list for all minor characters - I'm changing my vote to aree with Poiuyt Man. Characters with mini-bios can be put on one page, characters with significant, fleshed out stories should have their own pages. Bubbachuck 02:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Original post: I dont' know if it means anything to vote for a page i worked really hard on, but if anything, Yoshimitsu is NOT just a Tekken character but is prominently featured in the Soul Calibur series as well. He's as important to Namco as Ryu, Ken and Chun Li are to Capcom. I personally don't even think anyone can come up with a good reason to delete these pages. the argument for Keep is so strong: list pages are too long and there's too much known information about each character...the only reason why Lists are created is if there's little information for each item, otherwise we could have "Lists of the Presidents of the United States", "List of States", etc. If any further proof is needed, go to "Edit" of the "List of SC chars" and it says "...this page is >90kb, please shorten..." (paraphrased). With all due respect, I don't think the detractors understand the magnitude of information available for these characters. Strategy alone (and I don't mean FAQ-like but general, informative stuff) could fill up a page. Bubbachuck 18:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "SC characters"? jglc | t | c 18:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • SC characters = List of Soul Calibur characters. I just realized this specifically was for Tekken chars, which again makes Yoshimitsu's case special because he's feat. prominently in TWO big big franchise games by Namco. stop hating on the individual character pages...let the fans have they want. give them half a year and i guarantee there will enough information to make the type of article that the detractors want. if the detractors keep deleting the indiv pages, they don't have a chance to grow, then the list gets too long, indiv pages get made again, and the cycle repeats. Bubbachuck 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah. Hear hear. jglc | t | c 19:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of Tekken characters have absolutely no personality or history whatsoever (Christie Montiero is a joke), but some cannot be compressed into a tiny paragraph on the List of Tekken characters page.
• Merge all characters with less than a paragraph of information into Tekken characters. Keep it separate from List of Tekken characters, since having descriptions no longer qualifies it as a list. Link to main articles of characters with more detailed information (three paragraphs, at least). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 19:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I took this tedious task upon myself, and created Tekken characters. All the content of the minor characters has been merged into that page, and longer descriptions have a main article link. I now vote a weak keep for these characters: Baek Doo San, Julia Chang, Lee Chaolan, Devil Jin, Bryan Fury, Eddie Gordo, Hwoarang, Jin Kazama, Jun Kazama, Asuka Kazama, King (Tekken character), Ling Xiaoyu, Craig Marduk, Heihachi Mishima, Kazuya Mishima, Raven (Tekken character), Anna Williams, Nina Williams, and Yoshimitsu. That's 19 out of 50, and some are still pretty short and could be merged with the article. As for the rest, delete and redirect them. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I second this. Jacoplane 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Tekken characters. I think Poiuyt Man's idea is the best. Jacoplane 19:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All Come on. There's a bunch of pages for EVERY character in the Harry Potter, X-Men, Star Trek, and Star Wars universes. A lot of people spend a lot of time creating these pages, and they're nowhere near as widespread as the aforementioned ones. They should be able to stay. User:King Zeal 12:30, 26, July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-Enough of an argument has been given in here. i don't have to repeat what was already said.ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All Please take in account that this is an on-going game-series. It's very likely that someone will add content to every characters page in the future.
  • Comment: then branch those characters off into separate articles when information on them becomes available. For now, most of those characters have very few details. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge all back to the list article. This is fancruft. -R. fiend 01:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Dont see how this article is doing any harm. -- The Time Killer
• Keep - Never ever ever delte this page plz -- user:202.63.109.2
• Keep longer articles. Merge smaller ones if possible, keep them otherwise. --Kizor 07:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep profiles but Redirect overall page. I agree they should be merged akin to other character profile sections. But don't just delete every profile, thats way too harsh. If that were to happen, why not just delete Legend of Zelda's Link profile while we're at it? The Soul Calibur characters, Resident Evil characters, any character profile on Wikipedia? Change the actual placement of the listing a bit yes, but please don't delete the individual profiles. It'd be an enormous and tragic waste of hard work and would be more than a little too harsh. --Kiyosuki 21:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Old Ruthenia

Delete, do not redirect. the anon author creates a fork of Kievan Rus. The usage of "old ruthenia" in this sense is zero. mikka (t) 20:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Although it probably should be delete it, we shouldn't do so hastily because it contains a lot of content. The anon knows Wiki markup and even categorized it. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, lots of content. And markup is excellent. And all Copy-and-Pasted from Kievan Rus', the term the authors tries to drive out from WP. --Irpen 02:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete would be the best solution IMO (see comment below). --Irpen 00:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • anon just "copy-and-pasted" the Kievan Rus' article in here. This should not stand. The article should not exist as a duplicate or anything else but a redirect or a one paragraph explanation of the term an the usage or lack of it. I am fine with redirect to Kievan Rus'. In any case the current content has to be blanked. I am not sure whether it's better to delete or return to redirect because in either case another malicious user can recreate it. I would just recreate redirect and sanction the user for 3RR when he will reach it. --Irpen 21:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am strongy against a redirect, which would imply the legitimacy of the term. Please provide a reference to a moderately reputable scholar who uses it in English language. mikka (t) 21:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There is none. Similarly, there is no scholar who uses Prussian Holocaust and Ukrainian Holocaust for the events the POV pushers apply to what WP describes as Evacuation of East Prussia and Holodomor, respectively. There was no way to have these articles deleted via VfD. I ended up writing these articles about the terms, pointing out that it is arcane and obscure. The article about the term doesn't imply its legitimacy if it says explicitly that the term is not used in the mainstream . There is no reason not to do the same with Old Ruthenia. Again, deleting is fine with me. But if it has to stay, should be the term article rather than the article about the Kievan Rus' or a redirect. And under no circumstances should two articles be allowed to simply duplicate each other. Kievan Rus' is the article for the historic material. No question about it. --Irpen 21:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Your arguments are misdirecting. The "holocaust" articles are about these terms and their (biased) usage. "Evacuation" is a descriptive term about an event that does not have an established name. "Holodomor" The article in question attempts to establish a new name for a thing that was never called in this way in English language, mainstream or else. This is a fresh POV pushing, to be resisted. mikka (t) 23:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
          • To the contrary, the article denounces the attempts to establish the new term. A redirect helps establish a term more than an explanation denouncing it. Discussed in more detail at talk:Ukrainian Holocaust. Pls, respond there and pls show a little more tolerance to those who disagree. --Irpen 00:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
            • So far I did not call anybody names. What is going on here is a normal discussion, an exchange of arguments. Aren't you being a tad oversensitive? mikka (t) 00:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Possibly, just a tad. Blanking of a different article ticked me off. Sorry, --Irpen 00:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: keeping fork is definitely no-no. Pavel Vozenilek 23:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as possible. It is not OK to come up with a crappy and fictitious terminology and mess up existing articles. Sashazlv 01:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This was a shortcut around renaming the article on Kievan Rus’. The correct way to deal with this is to discuss it there, and rename that article or not. —Michael Z. 2005-07-19 04:33 Z
• Delete --Ghirlandajo 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I remember the earlier actions on this, and applaud Irpen and mikka for their foresight this time. Peter Ellis 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I just thought that perhaps redirect of Old Ruthenia to Ruthenia might also be not a bad idea. The Ruthenia article already includes the info on usage and etymology. Not that I would mind deletion of Old Ruthenia, but the old way (redirect to Kievan Rus') was a more odd solution, I think. --Irpen

In fact, the "old" redirect was to Ruthenia. mikka (t) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

All right. Should we restore it then? My point, as I said, is that whether the article ends up with a delete or a redirect, nothing can prevent a malicious user to recreate a fork or fill the entry with bs. A redirect to Ruthenia seems both reasonable and defensible. I am just afraid, the deletion won't last (even if it passes). Anyway, the fork will go away for sure. --Irpen 17:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I do understand your arguments; in fact, it was me who created this redirect some time ago, for the very reasons you are putting forth now. But please contemplate seriously what I am saying now:

"Old Ruthenia" was never in use as a distinctive term for a certain entity, like Old Sacramento or Old Norse. One may speak of, say, "Old France," and there even is Old French, but I don't think anybody ever will want the redirect Old France. There is no practical reason to have this Old Ruthenia redirect: most certainly every thing was sometimes old and sometimes new, and sometimes neither. That is why I placed it for deletion, rather than reverted to my original version, to close the issue once and for all. And each time this russophob will try to recreate it, I will delete it basing on this vote, rather that engage in revert wars. There are even precedents to create an empty protected page, using {{mediawiki:noarticletext}}, if the guy will be too perisistent. mikka (t) 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Now I got the idea. If you, as an admin, are allowed to use the vote result to delete the reappeared article in the future, it is indeed for the best to do the VfD once and for all. Unless, of course, a different text gets dumped into the newly recreated entry. Then, we will need a new VfD. It's amazing, how easy it is for a frivolous editor to waste so much time of so many others. But that's common in life, not only in WP. I am glad, the empty protected page solution exists as a last resort. Regards, --Irpen 21:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Totally Obvious

Non-notable website attempting to create notoriety by creating a Wikipedia entry EdwinHJ | Talk 20:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete See the text of the article if you need any more reason to support deletion of this page EdwinHJ | Talk 20:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As above. KeithD 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think that "a blog that struggles for the wikipedic recognition it so clearly deserves" in the article is reason enough. MicahMN | Talk 20:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously a joke in bad taste. --Madchester 21:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, tries to promote the website. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke/spam. --Etacar11 00:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable blog. JamesBurns 08:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, consider redirecting to Obvious. Radiant_>|< 10:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - (Radiant, did you mean an article other than "Obvious"?) - Tεxτurε 17:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - not as notable or commercial as Fuji Rock Festival or Creative Zen perhaps, but it exists. And if you try to kill it, you'll only make it more obvious. -- A Partisan Reviewer (Unsigned vote by 66.18.140.124 (talk · contribs), user's third edit)

• Keep A banal observation for one can be a breakthrough epiphany for another. The concept of the obvious blog cannot be so easily digested in a simple glance, and an entry such as this will perhaps motivate a better understanding of such experimental texts for all people alike. KeepingMyMindOpen (Unsigned vote by 129.219.83.141 (talk · contribs), only edits to this page)
• Delete. Vanity/advertisement. Postdlf 22:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity cruft. -- Karada 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - Interesting entry of a public forum. No harm in this . It may grow if left to it's own devices .Doalch 00.30 July 20, 2005 (GMT)
  • First edit by Doalch (talk · contribs). --Etacar11 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Non-notable is subjective, perhaps the blog is pseudo-notable verging on neo-notability. As for the charge of vanity, ALL is vanity sayeth the preacher. (Unsigned vote by 69.234.183.166 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)
  • Normally I wouldn't say anything as consensus has been clearly established, but just to answer this comment (which I found intresting). Pseudo is greek for false, therefore you just said the article is non-notable. Ergo, Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let it come back when 'obvious' is at least 'massive', if not 'mamoth'. Peter Ellis 04:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . And what if your mother had said " come back Peter when you are bigger " , until then I cannot accept you ? .Doalch 08.37 July 20, 2005 (GMT) (This vote actually by 84.9.35.171 (talk · contribs), only edits are to this page)
• Strong delete, non-notable website plus abuse of process. Dcarrano 17:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Ever notice how these vanity editors always say the same thing and always make exactly the same argument: "It's not hurting anyone... just let it grow naturally... I have every right to parasitize your site... how would you like it if I were mean to you?... Wikipedia is stupid anyway..." We've seen it. Binadot 03:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• A Defense

Whether you believe the Totally Obvious deserves an entry in the Wikipedia depends on your conception of the Wikipedia. I'm sure conceptions of the Wikipedia are many and varied, but for the sake of my argument, let me draw a simple but useful dichotomy here.

If you think of the Wikipedia as a more or less informal communitarian reference work, you'd probably have no sustainable objection to including the entry here proposed. If, on the other, you see the Wikipedia in more possessive or rigid terms as an effort toward definitive epistemological excellence and authority -- the open source rival to the Encyclopedia Britannica -- then you're probably of the mind of many on this page to exclude it.

I happen to be of the more liberal camp here, as in many things, and even in spite of my patently interested position in the debate, I would endorse its inclusion on these philosophical grounds. Indeed, I find the position and the practices here demonstrated by those who have sought to exclude it rather misguided. For one things, it is contrary to the "public commons" spirit of the wikipedia as a whole and, in many cases, contrary to the spirit of their own arguably marginal contributions. Secondly, and more substantially, it establishes a false and unfitting expectation for the Wikipedia.

As a sometime college instructor of writing, I encourage my students to browse and read the Wikipedia freely in the course of their research -- especially their preliminary research -- of a subject. But I sternly advise them against citing it in their final papers or essays. Not that the information is inherently unreliable, but there are more reliable sources out there. Open markets have, under the right circumstances, a capacity for great wisdom. But they also have a tendency toward speculation, mania, and extremism -- all things that make the Wikipedia much more enjoyable reading than most traditional encyclopedias. Reputable, deliberately funded, professionally staffed journals and reference books have established their credibility in their field and they make it their reason-for-being to uphold that credibility. The two types of cultural production can certainly reinforce one another. But it would advance the debate here, I believe, if their different roles were not confused.

This is not to say outright trivia, libel, slander, vandalism, hate-mongering, or incoherence have any place here. But a casual perusal of the Totally Obvious should reassure a fair-minded viewer that, while it may be irrevent, ramshackle, and novel, it rises above that more minimal standard for relevance and is worthy of the namespace here requested for it.

But put aside these philosophical arguments and let us focus on the practical merits of the case at hand. Objections or votes in favor of deleting the Totally Obvious entry have been justified on the following grounds:

1. It's nonsense.

Rebuttal: This is an invidious and almost wholly unsubstantiated claim. As noted above, a casual investigation of the Totally Obvious should satisfy a reasonable person that there is some sense behind: a sense of humor, a sense of the absurd, a literary sensibility, a political sensibility -- there is much sense in it.

2. It's promotional

Rebuttal: This can be said of every entry as any entry in the Wikipedia that includes external links -- or refers to external events! -- is liable to the same charge. I would guess that the blog has done more to promote the Wikipedia than the Wikipedia has done -- or will ever do -- to promote the blog. Moreover, even if this were a motivation driving its original submission to the Wikipedia, it is not a primary one. As one voter suggests above, this might even be looked upon favorably as a singular and creative application of the Wikipedia as a gateway for public recognition and public evaluation. If it is ultimately frivolous or transient, let it moulder away in its namespace --or, more in the spirit of things, be overshadowed and pushed down the page by more substantive claims to its namespace.

3. It's a joke

Rebuttal: I take this objection as having something to do with either the way it is represented in its entry or with the thing itself. That the thing itself might be light-hearted, irreverent, predominantly comical spirit is no real claim against its inclusion here. If the objection is against the tone and terms with which it has been represented, that may be emended easily enough, without exterminating the thing altogether.

4. A violation of procedure

I can offer no defense of the pranksters and vandals who have injected themselves into this debate other than to say their efforts have been pretty harmless thus far.

I recognize that those who oppose inclusion of the Totally Obvious here in the Wikipedia on institutional ground probably do so out of the noblest reasons. But in doing so, they make us all victims of that inexorable law governing unintended consequences. In positing themselves as dogmatic guardians of the integrity and civility of the community, they have introduced the most negative and unnecessary emotions to the matter. And in trying to preserve their own particular vision of the Wikipedia, they have ended up, in an admittedly very minor way, undermining it by making it smaller than it need be. It's the Wikipedia, not the Cliquipedia. If you want to establish small coteries of like-minded individuals who share your tastes and would suppress that which challenges your views or vision, I'd strongly recommend setting up a blog.

Newpoete 08:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: The above user, Newpoete is likely a sock/meat puppet, as its first and only contributions are to this vote, see [16] EdwinHJ | Talk 14:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I AM NOT A SOCK/MEAT PUPPET! I AM A HUMAN BEING! Besides, that's ad hominem and utterly beside the point. Newpoete 18:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That actually is not an ad hominem attack, because I am not insulting you or demeaning you. You created your account for the purpose of voting on this VfD page, that is the definition of a meatpuppet:

...When non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common on Votes for Deletion. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.

EdwinHJ | Talk 21:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 16:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wroaw

A CounterStrike clan that is currently without a server. Name gets ~7000 googles, but this is necessarily biased towards internet phenomena. Seems non-notable to me--what have they done to get into an encyclopedia? Meelar (talk) 21:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn clan vanity. --TheMidnighters 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gamer vanity CDC (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Gates' Law

Non-encyclopedic neologism TigerShark 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Are there no neologisms in Wikipedia? Why should this one be excluded? Rex 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Seems to pass the google test and I'm not sure if it is a neologism Dwstein 21:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Definite keep. I have found references from as far back as 2000. Neologisms relate to the author making the word up, not reflecting the actual use of a word in the world. Here is my cite for it:

"Moore's law is countered by Gate's law, which states something like as computer hardware gets faster and better, software will get more bloated and consume more resources, and implemented more poorly. Microsoft has lived up to Gate's law quite well, and I don't think there can be any argument there." http://forums.macnn.com/archive/index.php/t-93015.html This was from 8/7/2000.

It is not a neologism because it is not new, and the author is not coining it, but reporting on something already in use. Cyferx 21:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Neologisms do not neccessarily relate to the author making them up. If somebody invents a neologism and then I write an article on it, it is still an neologism. As to how new they have to be, I am not aware of a specific rule. TigerShark 21:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I would say that there are a lot of neologisms in the world, every day, new words are created. It would seem that we could not use new words until they got old, like Wiki could use 'rap' because it is more than 15 years old, but not 'bling-bling' because it is too new, too neo. The point is, are people using them or is the author just making them up? Wiki is concerned with the latter, not the former. Here is the source: Wikipedia does not accept fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via search engine hits (e.g. Google). Gate's Law produces significant hits on Google. It therefore passes the Google test for neologisms. Cyferx 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes of course you are right. Let's not lose sight of the fact taht I never said that just because it was a "new" it shouldn't be included - I said "unencyclopedic" neologism. It seems to be a bit of IT humour to me rather than the basis of a serious article.

• • If it was considered a serious "law" then it would have lot more Google hits after being in use for over 5 years [17] TigerShark 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless legitimate citations are added to the article; right now, it looks like an unencyclopedic neologism to me. (I don't consider most forum posts "legitimate citations", and I'm not alone in this, I don't think) CDC (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CDC. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly not a neologism - here's an article from 1997 on the law. I've heard of the law, and a Google search shows that plenty of other people have as well. — Asbestos | Talk 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, googling "Gates law" halves gave me 539 cites (a sort of semi-decent number) which, looking them over, looked respectable and on point (which is more important than the pure number). Dcarrano 00:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Some notability. JamesBurns 08:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep And cleanup. Noteable. Crosslink with moores law? Ravedave 19:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep. Gamaliel 18:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ted Joans

Biographical article, subject not notable

This article has existed as a stub for about two years. The subject appears to have no notable achievements other than being the purported innovator who created the outagraph, itself a neologism. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable Beat poet. Here's his Village Voice obituary. Has entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors and Biography Resource Center Online. Gamaliel 21:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It may have been just a stub, but I found it interesting. KeithD 21:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to have some noteriety and a google search brings up several news articles Dwstein 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd suggest people do a minimal research before nominating for deletion. mikka (t) 23:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable poet. Capitalistroadster 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a Village Voice obituary subject is notable. Dcarrano 00:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Outagraph

Neologism, article lacks context or any evidence of notability. Google search has 183 hits, most of them either Wikipedia mirrors, or content posted elsewhere by User:Daniel C. Boyer, the page's original author. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• del'. nonnotable term. mikka (t) 23:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Surrealist techniques. Make Outgraph a redirect. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:19, 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.

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. Gamaliel 21:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Henke

Vanity page Hansonc 21:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 no consensus. Woohookitty 06:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Zazzle.com and Zazzle

Advertisement --Gunmetal 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advert -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as copyvio from http://www.zazzle.com/welcome/first/about-us.asp Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• delete still spam Hansonc 21:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

  (Cut and pasted from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zazzle -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

• Delete both, advertising. JamesBurns 08:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising Eclipsed 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up the POV crap.--Daveswagon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. 205.188.116.135 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup to remove advertising tone, Alexa #6,968 doesn't quite make it but 120,000 hits and recent buyout by Google do. Dcarrano 17:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup how is it different than Cafepress page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafepress -- 12:48, 24 July 2005 (PST)
• Cleanup make it more neutral; Cafepress's page should be more neutral too -- 01:27, 24 July 2005 (PST)
• Keep and cleanup. Isn't cleanup the same as keep? And wouldn't it probably have been fix by now if it had just gotten a cleanup tag in the first place instead of vfd? The company itself is clearly notable. Just do a Google news search. --Sketchee 13:35, July 26, 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Giltin

one hit on Google that might be him assuming that you correct the spelling of the name to "Gitlin" Hansonc 22:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 00:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Feydey 21:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Coronation Street cast

Couldn't we just link to imdb?}}-- BMIComp (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a list article that provides links to Wikipedia articles about cast members. Your fancy imdb can't do that now, can it? Ground Zero 22:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep agree with Ground Zero -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Well, if that's the purpose this serves, then... categorify. Dcarrano 00:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • A category can't say who plays which part. Kappa 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The link from the VfD page to this page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 00:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia is not the imdb. Kappa 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. 23skidoo 02:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The list is clearly long enough to be on it's own page rather than the main Coronation Street article, and can't really be replaced by a category since (as Kappa pointed out), it contains information beyond the list of articles (the names of the characters each actor plays), and also because it contains numerous redlinks to actors who do not yet have articles. --Stormie 03:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the American soaps should have the cast on different articles as well. Mike H (Talking is hot) 15:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a break-out page. It wouldn't be here if it was still on the main page, but people create break-out pages to comply with system requests on page size. CalJW 19:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Show is a UK institution, and its main article is mammoth. Xoloz 04:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is precedent. Peter Ellis 04:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deb 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, shock-horror, I'm going against the flow, but that's my job now. Why? Policy. It breaks What Wikipedia is Not Rule M/R-1. And on top of that it is laughably unencyclopedic. I'm sure it could be worked into something like List of Coronation Street characters with main article links for each. On its own it violates our rules, and the rules (unless new proposals are made) are the rules. Official policies should not be broken, least of all for a cruftlist that could be integrated with a character list of some sort and in some way, and in turn be made a lot more useful to the reader. As it is, a list of unidentified internal links tells me nothing of who's on the other end of them. Garrett^Talk 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. the encyclopedia is not meant to be a respository of external links, but the ones listed here are internal ones. i don t see how you can say this is unencyclopedic - this is a list of actors who have appeared on the show and pages on the work actors do is encyclopedic. moreover, there are a lot of people with interest in this info. do agree however that adding bio info on this page briefly describing who the characters are would be most useful to the reader - Mayumashu 17:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - add the contents of this page to the main Coronation Street Page. - The Time Killer
• Keep - for the various reasons above. -- Lochaber 16:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Levo

Seems to be vanity of a non notable person or just non sensical article. Seems a bit random and brings up only hits in a another language on google. Jobe6 22:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Well it not notable. Jobe6 22:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense and/or short article without context. Dcarrano 00:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. 1983-2649? That's patent nonsense. Pburka 00:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense, this should have been speedied. JamesBurns 08:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 speedy deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Julius Norvila

This is clearly vanity and he only gives his email address out. Also brings up few hits on google relating to the Eduardo Norvila. Jobe6 22:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable vanity. Jobe6 22:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, test page or very short article with no context. Dcarrano 00:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Agree with Dcarrano. Pburka 00:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy no content. --Etacar11 01:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete stub vanity, should have been speedied for little or no content. JamesBurns 08:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Tali Hatuel

While this represents a personal tragedy for all those in her family I dont see why she is particularly notable, now why this event / person merits its own separate page. This is an Encyclopedia - not the home for a tribute page for every victim of violence the world over - no matter how sad. 62.253.64.14 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What bothers me more than anything is why an anonymous user's set-up for a vote should be taken seriously at all. Who the heck are you bud and why are you afraid to register for a regular Wikipedia ID??? IZAK 05:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Because I saw what happened to Yuber and how he was harassed off the board? Create a climate of fear and you get users too afraid to log in. Shrug. 62.253.64.15 07:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Aw Shuks, lemme give you a pacifier too! Listen bud, Yuber broke all the rules around here, he wasn't some "innocent" babe in the woods, but maybe you are, so why don't you come out of hiding darling...? IZAK 08:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

IZAK - if you can put aside the sarcasm for a minute and look at the behaviour of your fellow travellers on wikipedia:

From the Tali Hatuel History page - after I proposed this VfD

# (cur) (last) 02:03, 19 July 2005 Guy Montag m (fuck off)

# (cur) (last) 22:14, 18 July 2005 62.253.64.14

So what do you want me to do fuck off or get a login? Dont tell me ... "get a login and then fuck off"?

I'm open to offers. 62.253.64.14 17:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

By your actions, you have already proven yourself to be a worthless editor. Don't register, don't even read wikipedia. I don't need another Yuber around here.

Guy Montag 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While researching this tragedy on the Web I was led to the Wikipedia page and found it very useful. An encyclopedia article that contributes to research (I'm a Ph.D. criminologist) is worthwhile, indeed.
• Keep. While most of the thousands of deaths in this conflict are not notable, this one in particular is. The gruesome cold-bloodedness of the deliberate killing of a pregnant woman and her 4 young daughters caught the world's attention; it made all the news stories, and is still referred to years later, getting 5750 Google hits. It had a huge impact on the Israeli populace, and was significant enought that Amnesty International referred to it specifically as a "crime against humanity". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable for the media attention it attracted jamesgibbon 23:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the links at the bottom of the article are sufficient citations to show the subject is notable. — Asbestos | Talk 23:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is clearly notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Jayjg. BTW, votes by anons are not counted, so why are we allowing to nominate an article for VFD to someone who didn't even bother to register? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all the above reasons cited by those above. IZAK 05:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. – Smyth\^talk 09:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This is both notable and the fact that an anon has initiated this ridiculous vfd to prove a point makes this disgusting. Guy Montag 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And exactly what point would that be? How about a litle judicious application of the wikipedia guideline assume good faith? 62.253.64.14 18:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Your point is that you are a vicious anti Israel pov pusher who is angry that there is an article about someone your precious Palestinians murdered.

Guy Montag 19:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think all human life is precious. Palestinian or not. Don't you? 62.253.64.14 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's time for Guy Montag to be censured. Grace Note 05:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While all the deaths are important to remember this one in particular is simply so gruesome, so brutal and so unimaginable. Even more surprising about this horrific crime is how it was so under reported. All the more reason to keep. (User:Cosmo919, on his first edit ever, forgot to sign)

• Obvious keep - Alas, Guy Montag seems to have gone insane, This was never going to get removed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, 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 keep, no consensus. Dmcdevit·t 07:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Nudity in The Simpsons

Recently undeleted because it was voted to be deleted without proper process, I'm re-nominating it partly because others in the undeletion discussion asked for it to be re-nominated, partly because I also think it should go on basis of being little more than trivia. For the previous discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons. Francs2000 | Talk 22:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivia, not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to say keep, but trim down the POV essay-type guff in the intro. Flowerparty 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-encyclopedic. If you look at Nudity in science fiction literature, that's what an encyclopedia article like this should look like -- a discussion of the meaning of the nudity, artistically. Not just a "sex is often a theme in the Simpsons" statement, followed by a list. Dcarrano 00:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you serious about Nudity in science fiction literature? It's terribly written! Here's a sample sentence: "The circumstance that individuals, groups or entire nations are not clothed, is in such cases not simply an expression of a natural form of living, but reflects in an allegorical manner intentions of the author, or it fulfils different functions within the text." The writer means: "Sometimes nudity plays a symbolic role in science fiction." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why shouldn't people be able to look up how nudity is depicted in one of the most popular childrens' programs of all time? Kappa 00:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the hell would they bother? --Calton | Talk 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Among other reasons, they might bother because the Simpsons is a frequent target of L. Brent Bozell and his PTC protest-group. While disliked by some religious loons activists, the show also has progressive religious defenders, as seen in Religion in the Simpsons which is available at Amazon. As a lightning-rod in the "culture wars", the longest-running prime-time show presently on US television finds its morality (of which visual nudity is a frequently referenced short-hand indicator) the subject of frequent discussion. Xoloz 09:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Still Simpsons-cruft. --Calton | Talk 01:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't want to get something started, but I've noticed that Calton has a particular antipathy towards Simpsons-related articles, which he unfailingly dismisses as cruft. I don't think he can be counted on for a neutral assessment. Binadot 03:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the main Simpsons article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and encyclopedic. Rather too much material for a merge. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Much as I love the Simpsons, this is in no way encyclopedic. It's a list. As was stated by Dcarrano, that Sci-Fi article is what this would look like if it was good. But it doesn't. If someone wants to write about how nudity is artistically useful in the Simpsons, go ahead. In its current state, I again say Delete. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: on the basis that its not encyclopedic, it would be absolutely foolish to delete, as that way the list would be lost and no one COULD make it encyclopedic without persay, watching all the DVDs. If you really believe its unencyclopedic due to the style its written in, then rewrite it. I think its a fine, interesting list. By the way, The Simpsons is not a childs program, just that its enjoyed by children, its not targeted for them though. By the way I did not mean to sound hostile to any other users. Redwolf24 04:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic trivial simpsonscruft. JamesBurns 08:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Radiant_>|< 10:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article.DS 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ravedave 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper and nudity in the Simpsons is a valid topic.  Grue  07:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite. --Titoxd 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Tony Sidaway. older≠wiser 03:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup, also. Show is a US cultural institution, and main page is mammoth. Topic also interesting and valid. Xoloz 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft in many forms is still cruft. Mandel 12:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of info about an interesting subject. --Trovatore 06:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedia article about a random happening in a few Simpsons episodes that is not noteworthy. Indrian 17:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I know I've flip-flopped like a live fish on a hot grill. But I hope my recent edits reflect some of the above posters' concerns for improvement. CanadianCaesar 23:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 3-1 delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Carnivore (screenplay)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this has yet to be released. When it is an article should be created but it has been around for almost 2 years and still hasn't been released. Jobe6 22:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jobe6 01:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. That single sentence has given me a purpose in life, as well as enlightening, elucidating and informing me. Delete as absolutely pointless. --Scimitar ^parley 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1,000 movie projects are discussed for every one that gets made. If the cameras haven't started rolling yet, most movie projects are notoriously prone to falling into "development hell" and never getting made, making this too crystal ball-y. (Not every single movie project is a toss-up -- I think we know there's going to be a Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix movie -- but most are, including this.) Dcarrano 00:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. it's linked off wachowski brothers, correctly. it's part of the reason they became famous, and there are many hits for it on the intarweb. i've expanded the article, accordingly. it's certainly more valuable than some of the sub stubs we have out there. it will also eventually wind up being fleshed out. see history of 40mm grenade for another aticle which was one sentance that a VfD made much stronger. Avriette 01:15, July 24, 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 05:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Max Ernst and Alchemy : A Magician in Search of Myth

Sub-stub, not notable, no suitable place to redirect to. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Thunderbrand 01:56, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Apparitions_of_Things_to_Come:_Edward_Bellamy's_Tales_of_Mystery_&_Imagination

Sub-stub, not notable, no suitable place to redirect to. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete', can't see the point of this at all other than possible advertisement/vanity. Xaa 23:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Midmark Corporation

spamvert Hansonc 22:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but Keep if severely pruned back and NPOV'd. Companies are at least as noteworthy as pokémons and the endless fancruft Wickedpedia is already swimming in.... Bill 22:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio Surely a copyvio of [18]?? Mark 22:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Clinton Street

Delete Combines advertisement, tour guiding and potential non-notability (although it could be important enough to be re-written) into a single two sentence article. Icelight 22:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lower East Side, until the editor actually figures out something to say about it. Dcarrano 00:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV promo, notability not established. JamesBurns 08:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I would vote redirect but it doesn't seem that useful as one. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not necessarily notable, and perhaps not even true from a broader perspective. This may be a 'hot street'; however, defining it as such in a tourism guide would be more appropriate than in an encyclopedia.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

HA! HA! guy

This page was created after its first incarnation Ha ha guy was nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). As most of the delete votes in that initial discussion are proposing that the article is un-noteworthy I feel it right that this clone of the original article is also proposed for deletion. My vote is delete. Francs2000 | Talk 22:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this one has pictures, but is still about an unencyclopedic topic; just some stuff that happened on a forum. Really, it shouldn't be necessary to do a second VFD, because this was a duplicate article, but here we are. CDC (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not a "clone" of the article. It gives a history and everything. I didn't know it began on the SomethingAwful forums. I wouldn't know that if it was deleted. Also see here. Also, they were created by two different people. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article." --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I now feel confident both articles should be handled the same way -- if this phenomena of cliche pictures is encyclopedic, then write about that in an appropriately titled article, but this seems to just be a non-notable intricacy of the barely notable forum site Fark.com which is something that should not expand into a whole article on its own, because people just would not look for something like this in an ecyclopedia. (See also, my notes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). --Mysidia 23:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Kill this when you kill All your base are belong to us. Not every meme deserve to live, but this one seems to have grown enough that it might qualify. - Chairboy 23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An Internet phenomenon or meme is encyclopedic. Quoting Wikipedia policy on importance: "An article is important and deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia if any one of the following holds true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." There are clearly more than 500 people interested! ([19]) ArcTheLad 23:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We're discussing this because a related VfD is in play (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy). IMO the related VfD should result in a redirect, and this should be kept, because this article is already encyclopedic and interesting, and because of the likelihood this will be an even more encyclopedic article. After all, we've VfDd and kept an article about a woman who's only encyclopedic accomplishment in life was to climb mt everest in a skirt and wrote a book about it. Quaker guy has more mileage, ISTM. Flawiki 00:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Frances is a douchebag. Then again, so are Drew Curtis and Jeff, the two head honchos behind fark.com, so it's not like fark users aren't used to that sort of thing. Anyway, as I've said before -- when we use fark, we try to forget about its many, many flaws (such as the unfair deletions, paying to be linked on the main page, the superiority complexes of TotalFarkers, etc.). Some of what helps us forget are the funny cliches and articles that appear. The "Ha Ha" guy is one of those cliches. It's almost like someone has to die of cancer and the article linked to the main page for the admins and moderators -- as well as Fark posters both lite and TF -- to not be douchebags. When you attack the items used from the site, you attack its users as well. Most think its funny, and most think it is relevant. If you are going to delete it, and I don't think you should, then at least link the stupid thing to fark.com which you SHOULD have done in the first place. Which makes me think, if you are going to link it to fark.com, and have it listed as being relevant to the site, wouldn't it need its own entry to explain WHY it's there in the first place? Granted, Admiral Ackbar is listed due to Star Wars. But he has additional significance as it relates to Fark.com. It's really a fine line here, but why make such a big deal out of it? When it comes down to it, it's just an image, and you guys at Wikipedia aren't exactly the most superior life forms on the Internet, either. Nobody is really going to notice this after it calms down, and now that it's one day later after one of the Fark admins went off his ritalin and all but demanded that Fark posters who liked the image stopped using it, things ARE beginning to calm down a bit. At least, that's the way it seems to me. --68.158.111.157 01:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect against recreation fork to avoid VfD. -Splash 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't mean it'll win the Miss America contest, and prettying up the Ha ha guy article doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• HA! HA! I'm using the delete button! Note to article creator: this meme is popular on imageboards too. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 02:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article indeed seems to be much more informative than the original "Ha Ha Guy" article. I have done a lot of reading on what does and does not constitute a valid Wikipedia article. Everything I have read so far suggests that the article is completely legit. These internet memes are fascinating and I see no reason whatever to remove them. There are no space constraints - as previously mentioned, this is not a paper encyclopedia! Furthermore, the arrogance of those that seek to remove the page is disgusting to me. If the article is not "noteworthy" to you, simply don't read about it. I find lots of stuff in the Chinese language Wikipedia to be "not noteworthy", yet I am not parading around trying to remove the content. I think Wikipedia was built for articles like this in mind. --Digizen 02:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Contrary to the dismissive sniffing above, this is a useful article. I myself searched here for HA! HA! Guy several times during the course of his meteoric rise to fame/infamy -- to no avail. Only today did I finally find something with useful information -- history and origin, in my case. I know there are many people curious about just where this came from, and finding answers is what an encyclopedia is for -- right? --Atario 05:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't mind the Fark people.. it is a real thing. Rhobite 05:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ha ha. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are some Internet memes that are noteworthy enough to keep, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 11:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The notoriety bar is rather low on Category:Internet memes as it stands, and this far exceeds a lot of them. Also, there's certainly some interesting implications with this being the first memorable template-based user-generated graphic thingo, and the whole linguistic implications of thousands of people using an image as a conversational medium. -The Tom 14:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn internet memes. --Scimitar ^parley 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ArcTheLad, satisfies Wikipedia:Importance, and is a well written/formatted article to boot. --TheMidnighters 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please it seems like a notable meme to me Yuckfoo 17:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep its ranged out from fark, just look around friendster or myspace, or any imageboards.
  • Kingdead42 (talk · contribs)'s only edit to date
• Keep Notable. Google is behind on this on. The # of hits on this will go way up once google does some reindexing. Ravedave 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 228 Google hits -- no matter how far behind Google may be, that is awful for an "internet phenomenon." Xoloz 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Determining worthiness by Google rank is rediculous. "HA! HA! Guy" goes by dozens of different names. Noclip 19:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a big enough meme. Darobsta 11:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not "encyclopedic?" There's *tons* of stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't fit in traditional encyclopedias. I thought that was a major selling point of this site. If I you don't want to brush up against memes and barely-useful entries, go buy the Britanica. I would at least hold off until we see if this goes much further - if it hits "All Your Base" level, it's going to have an entry whether people like it or not, and this one's a pretty good entry. : BankyEdwards 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, take a swing by the Internet memes page and check out how many have their own Wiki entries. Mostly stuff I've never heard of, and don't find that funny. Should they all be deleted? C'mon, lighten up.  : BankyEdwards 02:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some internet memes are noteworthy, this isn't. Garrett^Talk 06:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But clean up the links. There shouldn't be duplicates (ie. Ha ha guy) I gained something from this article. I was curious as to the origins of the image in forums I visit and this provided me the information I was looking for. Wynler 16:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's now part of the Internet phenomenons, for better or worse. Rborek 23:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.The whole point isn't just HA!HA! guy, but the very real phenomenon around it as it migrated from SA to TF and - I'm sure - elsewhere. This page should stand on those merits and not on those of an earlier version, which might or might not have reflected this. Besides, if every "non-encyclopedic" concept were wiped from Wikipedia, it would be as marketable as yesterday's newspaper. Ceremony1968 01:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User's 3rd edit outside their user page and the article itself -- Francs2000 | Talk 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.It's a record-setting article on Fark. Who cares? --unsigned vote by 65.37.61.237 (talk · contribs), user's 4th edit.
• Delete The Ha ha guy? Ugh. Get rid of this. --unsigned vote by 68.99.89.177 (talk · contribs), user's 2nd edit.

• Keep If you want formality, look to brittanica or a more formal source. Makenji-san
• Strong keep. I was looking for this information awhile ago, and was disappointed that he didn't have an article. I even put up an article request for it, not knowing that the article already existed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been interested in this topic. -- DocSigma 14:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After seeing this image on many fark threads, I was curious as to where it came from. I looked up the article for fark, followed the link to this article, and learned all I wanted to know. My vote is to keep the HA! HA! guy article, and make Ha ha guy a redirect to it. -- ssj4android
• HA! HA! I vote to Keep --unsigned vote by 205.188.116.138 (talk · contribs), user's 352nd edit.
• Strong Keep! Well written article on something seen every day by thousands of people --unsigned vote by 67.173.204.34 (talk · contribs), user's 1st edit.
• Keep. I learned about the history of this phenomenon from the article. Isn't that what wikipedia is for? --unsigned vote by 64.9.54.212 (talk · contribs), user's 1st edit.
• Move to Ha! Ha! I'm using the Internet!!1, which is most defninitely an internet phenomenon if the picture itself isn't. Noclip 19:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (First edit on Wikipedia, check my account on Wikinews for tons of edits)
• Keep. Wiki has dozens of this kind of article that have all been kept. This is no different, and I think part of Wiki's job is to document internet culture--because where else would I look up the GNAA?--TexasDex 03:14, August 3, 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 15:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Win-Win Power Negotiating

Non-encyclopedic. Copy vio too? PhilipO 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• haven't been able to find a copyvio source, but definetly looks copy vio, but delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sure it's a copyvio, but whatever - it's also totally unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfied and deleted. Dmcdevit·t 04:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Adnan Aman

vanity page Hansonc 23:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Article was userfied to User:Realfantasy NSR (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 04:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez

vanity joke page Hansonc 23:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. Pburka 00:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yes, vanity/joke. --Etacar11 01:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 08:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current article. It should really be about the former MSNBC anchor. — RJH 18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This should be about CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, not anyone else. It's confusing! (Unsigned vote by 65.3.65.118 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I Like To Move It

random giberish Hansonc 23:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. That's what the nonsense tag is for. --Scimitar ^parley 23:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. Dcarrano 16:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. This is notable for a song.--Pharos 06:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. bbx 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit·t 04:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bernwood Forest

Delete Non-notable. ArcTheLad 23:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Where did you get non-notable from? Try searching for it on google, you get hits such as Buckinghamshire County Council, Chiltern Railways, Aylesbury Vale District Council, BBOWT and the Forestry Commission all mentioning it by name. Or are you just bitter because I created this article and I've nominated two of your favourite articles for deletion? -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • According to this article, it's just a forest that was deforested. There's nothing that hints at the reason that it's supposedly notable. ArcTheLad 03:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So I haven't got around to expanding it yet. That's because as an admin my time tends to get taken up dealing with trolls and vandals than with expanding articles. But a simple google search (which you could have done) has proven that it is notable after all. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a royal forest with hundreds of years of history. CalJW 19:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A forest that's been deforested - there's your notability right there. Real place, community of interest, few trees. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keepeth foresooth — RJH 18:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep it's not a schoool. 131.251.0.7 20:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any place that has a thousand year old history is definitely notable.--Pharos 06:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Dmcdevit·t 04:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Barranquillera

Delete Simple dic def, with no real possibility for expansion that wouldn't be better included in Barranquilla. Furthermore, the latter article states that those hailing from the city are reffered to as "Curramberos." Icelight 23:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Barranquilla. It's fun, and you don't even need a VfD! (Also, google seems to indicate that the term is widely used, but I don't know Spanish, so I can't verify if the usage is as described.) Pburka 00:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I put it up for VfD; I don't know if we need foregien language redirects to english pages, (e.g. amigo -> friend) and the city page didn't seem to imply that it was a commonly used term. --Icelight 15:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Barranquilla. JamesBurns 08:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Barranquilla Youngamerican 16:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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