Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 4

July 4

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

Harry Timmer

The result of the debate was Delete Dunc|☺ 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC) This is an article about a non-notable person that provides very little in the way of information. I vote for delete. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs; adding to today's log. --cesarb 4 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, teacher vanity. Possibly written by Timmer himself or one of his students. How can a comment about "Room 4" (bolding from article) be encyclopedic when no one outside the school knows what Room 4 is? — JIP | Talk 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 00:30 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, the user who wrote this also wrote Paul Sharp, which is also nn, vanity. Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Delete non notable teacher vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete along with Paul Sharp and Leeboy. All of them are vanity pages probably made by the same author. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
• Delete Agree non-notability - and is tea drinking in class verifiable? (How can that help anyone reach full potential?) --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
• Response To the tit above, drinking tea keeps pupils interested in the lesson and awake, so they are motivated when they are doing their extended notes.
• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Cnwb 5 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
• Delete- for reasons presented above.--Bhadani 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• Delete ^^ --mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:31 (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. Dunc|☺ 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gil_Student

because it is a Vanity Page Eliezer 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Delete --Hullbr3ach 4 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  • Discount vote possible sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
• Comment A Google search for "Gil Student" returns over 5,000 results, and his book is for sale on Amazon (although it is #921,113 in sales). Undoubtedly the page was written by him or by an admirer, but he does have some borderline notability. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author is sufficient for me. Pburka 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn. I didn't realise Amazon carried books from vanity presses. Pburka 4 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. According to Jayjg, not technically vanity, so I'll go with "not notable" instead. According to Amazon, the publisher is Universal Publishers, which appears to be a vanity press. Student's book is available in their bookstore here. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
• Comment In considering this, I also noted that the book appears to be published by a vanity/subsidy publisher, which, in my opinion, makes notability questionable. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Authors need to pay to get a book vanity published. I didn't notice a price listing on the site in question. Seems to be a simple non-vanity POD publisher to me. Has crappy amazon ranking though. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:12 (UTC)
  • Regarding his book he gives it out for free on his website moshiachtalk.com --Eliezer 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
    • No he doesn't. He allows you to download all the chapters, which is something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • Allowing someone to download your entire book in ebook format for free is the same as giving out your book for free. --Eliezer 6 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. The Gideon Bible people give out books for free; Student supports Open Access, and provides a number of scholarly works in electronic form for free, including one of his own. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • It costs $495 to submit a manuscript to this vanity publisher. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Delete as per Eliezer--nixie 4 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
• Delete: A person who would have a vanity publication between covers would look for one on the web. Even if he were published by a commercial press, publication really isn't enough, or at least it hasn't been, as "published authors" outnumber the sands on the beach or the stars in the sky. The question is whether he needs a biography, due to his work. I think the answer is clearly no. Geogre 4 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)m
• Delete. Sure seems like a vanity page to me. Google comes up with a lot of stuff written by him, but not much written by others about him. RoySmith 4 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
• Comment. While Gil Student may not qualify for a biographical article under Wikipedia's criteria, he isn't the author of this page, so technically it's not "vanity". Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • Who says he isn't the author, it was made by someone anonymous. --Eliezer 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
    • I say Student is not the author, because I contacted him and spoke with him about it. He was rather bemused by the whole thing, and seemed a bit embarassed that it had been created in the first place. I suspect it is the work of an over-zealous admirer. In any event, Student didn't think he really qualified for a Wikipedia article, and had no objections to its deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
      • Never write a wikibio on a person you admire. Reminds me of the cantorcruft debacle. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Guy is doing significant work, but the article does not bear this out sufficiently. Also quite brave for republishing Slifkin's books in the face of a ban. JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • Brave? the rabbis were Orthodox, Gil is modern orthodox. --Eliezer 7 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
    • Yes, brave. Student is Orthodox just like the Rabbis who condemned Slifkin. He has been roundly criticized by many of his acquaintances, who are against making waves, and his sons' principal wasn't very happy. The possibility of personal consequences was and is real. Also, he didn't publish the book, he just distributed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I like Gil personally (and I really do), he's not notable for wikipedia's purposes. An excellent blog and a small publisher are not sufficient for mention. (that said, read his blog!) Mikeage 7 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This does not meet any of the stated categories for deletion. If there are more important rabbis without Wikipedia pages, just write pages for them! Republishing Rabbi Slifkin's works in the face of the ban alone makes his work important enough for a Wikipedia listing. CharlieHall
  • Discount vote possible sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that sounds like it might be interesting. Add these facts (verified and with sources, of course), describe the controversy or whatever and its impact on Orthodox Jewry as a whole, and I might reconsider my vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
    • Slifkin himself has no Wiki page, and probably shouldn't. If Student's only merit is putting out controversional books with a small readership, then he may not be notable. Also note that Special:Contributions/Charlie Hall has only one edit: this vote. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it, although this sounds like rationale for a delete vote, and you voted to keep (however weakly). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 00:35 (UTC)
      • Apparently Slifkin's works have sold quite well, even moreso since the ban, which increased interest in them in Modern Orthodox circles. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
• Delete. Personally, I think Gil Student, a very knowledgeable rabbi, is at least more interesting than all the zillions of athletes in Wikipedia. He is a mover and shaker in the Jewish community, I own his book myself, which addresses a huge controversy in Jewish circles. No doubt he will eventually warrant a Wikipedia article, though as the article stands now, it doesn't really meet notability criteria. I do empathize with the zealous fan who authored this article though, I'm a fan of Rabbi Student too : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 7 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Keep Gil Student is a famous character in the Jewish Internet and plays a major role in the Slifkin controversy that seperates ultraorthodox groups from liberal observant Jewry. (Unsigned by 84.160.245.154)
• Keep Rabbi Student is quite famous and also important enough for a wikipedia article. But it definitely has to be updated to a more neutral and descriptive article. (Unsigned by 84.160.236.192)
• delete as per Eliezer- He is not notable compared to any of his teachers who do not have pages. And his book publishing, blog, and following is vanity. (Unsigned by 141.150.109.42)
• Strong keep - Rabbi Student has become very influential and well known, and his involvement in the Slifkin ban controversy is already of serious historical interest. (By the way, I write this though I often disagree with Rabbi Student's views.)Dovi 07:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG keep--Josiah 14:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

A page for Slifkin too

Above, JFW wrote that "even Slifkin probably shoudn't have a page." Why not? This controversy is shaking the Orthodox world, and may even reinforce both a sociological split and have huge theological repercussions for the entire idea of rabbinic authority in Orthodoxy. It is of very serious historical interest. Just because something happens over the web and on blogs doesn't mean it isn't "real". This is real.

The publisher of books that were banned in the midst of a world-wide controversy is certainly noteworthy. Dovi 07:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

While the person who put this article up for VfD is indeed member of Chabad, it must nevertheless be judged on its own merits, regardless of the motivations of the nominator. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, there is something called vanity and non-notable, this exists in this situation to try to argue against it by saying that it is because of his stance on chabad is avoiding the issue and an attempt to change the subject. This has nothing to dow ith anything that Student has said or done in the past. Writing a book that is published by a vanity press isn't notable and neither is running a small blog. Even printing a controversial book in his own printing press doesn't make someone notable. --Eliezer 08:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The book is not just "controversial." It is at the center of a world-wide controversy. A Cherem of the type that happened here is not unusual at all, by the way. What is different is that this cherem was followed by an internet rebellion, one that included the active participation of rabbis and scholars from around the world! This has never happened before, it is of extreme historical interest, and yes, Eliezer, it is of extraordinary importance.

Of course, Jayjg, I agree that the case should be decided on its own merits. But the fact that that has not happened on this page is a cause for concern. Wikipedia has the stats on every mediocre athlete in the country, and they are not deleted as "vanity" pages.

Eliezer, I would like to point out to you that I am not a big fan of Gil Student, and in fact his extreme views on Chabad are part of what I oppose. But there is no denying that he has played an important role in extremely important events recently. Dovi 08:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is a vanity page?

This page is listed for deletion as a vanity page. However, it meets none of the requirements for a vanity page:

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The article as it stands is salient and not promotional. Even if Gil Student wrote the page (which he apparently did not) it would not be a candidate for deletion.

In fact - and this is cute! - even if Gil S. himself thinks he is not noteworthy enough for a page (as Jayjg wrote above), that is not reason for deletion :-)!

Since there are no "vanity page" grounds for removal in terms of policy, I move that we dismiss this whole motion. It is not even worthy of a vote. Dovi 08:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, this isn't how wikipedia works, you get a chance to vote which you have, and so does everyone else. Apparently based on the votes placed until now nearly all votes that are allowed to be counted say that it's either vanity or not notable. --Eliezer 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It could be that some people really weren't fully aware of the events going on that Student was involved in, or of why they are so important. I dare say that no one would consider deleting information about actors in a controversy of similar importance regarding another religious or policial issue. The article as it currently stands is quite clearly not "vanity" and is quite notable. If fact, more articles should be added on the topic, including Nosson Slifkin and cleaning of Jewish creationism (though this controversy goes well beyond general Jewish creationism in its importance). The article on Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv should also be expanded to reflect this and other important charamim that he has decreed. Dovi 10:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

To quote JFW above "If Student's only merit is putting out controversional books with a small readership, then he may not be notable." --Eliezer 11:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, their readership is huge now, precisely because of what the article described. They are having a publishing boom. Second of all, I respectfully disagree with the notion that publishing banned books in general is not of notable interest. Actually, it is of great interest to many (witness the "Banned books" section at the "Online Books Page"). Even JFW was hesitant ("may not"), because this really goes against all intuition. Thirdly, this banning controversy, especially because of the immediate and publically defended reissue, goes well beyond a general cherem of the Rav Shach or Rav Elyashiv type.Dovi 11:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DeleteDunc|☺ 16:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Myosin Unrooted Tree

Almost nothing but an image. The image itself is at use in phylogenetic tree and myosin. Nabla 2005-07-04 01:17:50 (UTC)

• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
• Delete; Useless. Jaxl 4 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. Ought to be speediable, but according to the rules it ain't. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains no information not already found at myosin. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The images found at myosin and Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg are too small to be deciphered. The image in this article fits the purpose. It contains a lot of information for people interested in biochemistry and proteins. The article gives the necessary hyperlinks to the relevant articles. Therefore : strong keep. JoJan 4 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)
  • Comment. Clicking on the image enlarges it.--Nabla 2005-07-04 16:29:34 (UTC)
• The image page at Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg also does the very same tasks of providing the larger version of the image and the sources. Given that this article was originally at MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg, this is clearly a mis-placed image description page, which is in the wrong namespace and redundant given the actual image description page. Delete. Uncle G 2005-07-04 09:52:36 (UTC)
• Delete, that's what the image description page is for. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
• Delete images don't need a page in the main namespace.--nixie 4 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
• Delete RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
• Delete it is redundant David D. 5 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 09:04 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

SoBe No Fear

Oh, for god's sake, here it is again. We deleted this last year; all the reasons still apply, I think?DS 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

• Delete. Still a non-article. --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Delete, there's nothing here that can't be said better and more concisely in SoBe. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
• Is this essentially the same content that was deleted last time around? If so, it can be speedied; if not, Delete, product nutritional info is definitely not encyclopedic. Wow. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 03:08 (UTC)
• Delete --again. Same rational as before. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)
• Oh god. Delete. And delete any article in which the author copies the packaging of any product like this. I'm surprised the article doesn't say "to open pull tab" or "best if used by 02.2006". -R. fiend 4 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
• As much as I love the stuff, Delete. An article explaining the "history" of the drink, or whatever, isn't good enough either, because it can just be placed in a main SoBe article. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
• Delete - advertorial JoJan 4 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
• Merge lead back into and redirect to SoBe. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:16 (UTC)
• Delete Ingredients lists are not encyclopedic (as opposed to discussing ingredients that are significant like Coke introducing salted water (Dasani) or Budweiser making a caffinated beer). -Harmil 4 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)
• Keep Notable soft drink. Klonimus 6 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
• delete agree with reasons above mysekurity 9 July 2005 04:28 (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 Dunc|☺ 17:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gail Kelly

Being the CEO of a bank is not sufficient notability for inclusion. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 01:32 (UTC)

• Keep. The bank is notable, so the CEO is by logical extension. Note the existing article Mohammad bin Ali Al Abbar. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
• Keep On a slight cultural notes banks in the US are genelly limited in geographical area and have a few branches. In Australia banks are country-wide are there are only 5 banks. Although the article dosen't sqay it Gail Kelly is a major figure in Australian business and is certainly noteable enough for Wikipaedia.--Porturology 4 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
• Keep. Being the CEO of a bank is sufficient notability for inclusion. Pburka 4 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)
• Keep CEOs of real banks. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see why just being a CEO of something relatively important makes you automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia. If she is indeed a major Australian business figure, then the article should reflect that, but until/unless it does, I don't see how this topic deserves and article nor do I see why the minimal information there can't be covered in the bank's article. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
• A good point. This could well end up as a pointless stub. Why people submit stubs when it would take little effort to make a reasonable article is beyond me. I also don't know why Wiki does not have a policy of deleting 2 line stubs, but it dosen't and therefore it should be kept.--Porturology 4 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • The article existed for 17 minutes before it was nominated for deletion - I submitted the stub to put something up, two lines is better than nothing, especially when I intended to edit it later that night [1]. - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:11 (UTC)
• Why not wait till you had the article ready and it would have saved us all this bother? There are plenty of 2 line stubs that are never going to be expanded.--Porturology 4 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)
• Keep. CEO of publicly traded corporation.Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
• Keep. N. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
• Keep. This article's stub status does not make the individual any less notable. - Thatdog 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy's notable enough for me. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] July 4, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
  • I have expanded her article indicating notability. She is the first woman to be the head of a major Australian bank and she has won the Australian Banking and Finance Magazine Award for best Financial Services Executive in 2003 and 2004. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
• Keep expanded article. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:21 (UTC)
• Keep. (Disclaimer: I am a contributor to the article) CEO of the fifth biggest bank in Australia, first woman to head a bank in Australia, first woman to head a Australian top 15 company. We have articles about schools of 500 kids, so why dont we have articles about the heads of large companies? And the article was only created this morning, I was going to expand it tonight. Why articles are submitted for deletion after 17 minutes of existence - especially when the subject is the head of a major Australian company, is completely beyond me. - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:01 (UTC)

• Delete: We shouldn't have articles on schools of 500, either. The question is whether the person is well known enough and referred to enough to need a biography. The corporation she works for may be very important without making her, as a person, a proper subject of a biographical article. She could be very unique, as well, but it is a combination of remarkable qualities and fame that makes her a proper subject. She's borderline for the reasons Aaronhill mentions, but I lean toward folding a short version into the bank. (As for why 17 minutes after creation, it's because of the sheer tidal wave of junk that comes in.) Geogre 4 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
• Keep. CEO of the 5th largest bank is notable. DS1953 5 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if notability were an agreed-upon criterion, she would qualify. Dystopos 5 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
• Keep. Its useful to have bios of these people. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)
• Keep Grace Kelly Klonimus 6 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Keep -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 6 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
• Keep--AYArktos 7 July 2005 10:33 (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 and move to Del-Vikings. 9k+m including redirects, 1k, 1d(before rewrite). -Splash 01:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Dell-Vikings

non-notable entry, may be related to 1950s band The Del-Vikings, which does not have an entry of any kind. --Mitsukai 4 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)Redirect to The Del-Vikings--Mitsukai 4 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• Delete; although The Del-Vikings would be deserving of their own entry, nothing here seems salvageable. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 02:05 (UTC) After rewrite, redirect to The Del-Vikings. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• Delete as it is; if more info is provided, move to The Del-Vikings. Jaxl 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC) Rewrite and redirect to The Del-Vikings. Jaxl 4 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite completely. The Dell-Vikings and the Del-Vikings started as the same group but their name was spelled differently depending on what record label they recorded for. (An explanation can be found at Allmusic.) --Metropolitan90 July 4, 2005 04:49 (UTC)
  • It should be a redirect to The Del-Vikings, with an explanation. The single-L-with-hypen variation of the name is what they are best known as, and should be the paramount name out of the three they used.--Mitsukai 4 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite (I'll do this myself if I find some time). It's a less common spelling of their name. See [2]. Pburka 4 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
  • I've just done a rewrite; however, any other changes are welcome, and it doesn't matter to me which spelling is the main one and which is redirected. --Metropolitan90 July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)
• Keep article with possible move to The Del-Vikings. Notable doowop band which had several hits thereby meeting WikiMusic Project criteria. Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
• Keep and Move as per above. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
• keep and move like said above Spearhead 4 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)
• Keep and move, as per above. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)
• Keep & Move. As above. Cnwb 5 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
• Keep & Move. Interesting little piece of music history. — Dan Johnson ^T_C July 6, 2005 16:55 (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 deleteDunc|☺ 17:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anna Nevenic

Ran twice, lost twice. I think you have to be pretty notable to merit an article on that basis. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 02:17 (UTC)

• Delete based on article I looked at - notability is lacking for newby politician not yet elected. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
• Delete, as it appears she has not done anything notable outside of running and losing. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
• Delete, there's no good reason to include politicians who lose elections on a local level. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:23 (UTC)
• Delete Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:02 (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 Userfy to user:Grujic.markoDunc|☺ 17:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Marko Grujić

Classical vanity Denni☯ 2005 July 4 02:43 (UTC)

• Keep this article. I have just started writing it, it will have a lot more. More time is needed for it to be done. After it's done if still not satisfied you may delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grujic.marko (talk • contribs) 2005-07-04 03:32:41
• This 17-year-old does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. The author, whose (largely empty) autobiography this clearly is (given the user name), has made other contributions to Wikipedia. Userfy. Uncle G 2005-07-04 09:23:20 (UTC)
• Userfy per Uncle G. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
• Delete. If he wants to recreate it under his user space, that's his perogative. RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
• Userfy. Be kind to new, well-intentioned contributors. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)
• Userfy I'm with DoubleBlue. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:03 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Dunc|☺ 17:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jeafrel bahian

No evidence of notability. Delete. JeremyA 4 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity. Rocky July 4, 2005 05:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity. --Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity JoJan 4 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't "non-notable" a sufficient cause for speedy deletion? If not, why not? --Wetman 4 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)
  • Nominators may fail to establish existing notability on a subject outside their field of interest when the article's subject is in fact notable. Also, non-notable could be abused as a reason to get stuff speedied if we did use it as such. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
    • Precisely. I agree that no one person should be able to speedy an NN or vanity page, but it might be reasonable to expand the Speedy procedure to cover personal or band vanity articles after three or four Speedy or Delete votes in VfD. I probably belong in the CSD expansion discussion about now, so yeah. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:26 (UTC)
• Delete, NN vanity. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:07 (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 4 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Jewish media

Article is blatently point of view skewed and I can't see how this article could be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV Guidelines Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 04:42 (UTC)

• I agree with Jtkiefer, let's have a speedy deletion. --Vladko 4 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)
• strong delete this article doesn't seem to have any actual content, and is (IMO) extremely offensive. speedy. Oracleoftruth July 4, 2005 04:48 (UTC)
• delete. Author neglected to add <blink> tag to all occurrences of the word Jew. Pburka 4 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Disgusting rant. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:23 (UTC)
• delete. Page is not only disgusting, but is a cut & paste from copyrighted material found at [3] Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
• delete. --Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:37 (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 Dunc|☺ 18:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Updation

WP:WINAD. Dicdef neologism without possibility of expansion. Delete. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
• Strong Delete-- Bad neologism. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Additional Comment -- even if it were a good word, it would only be a candidate for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. -- WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologist dicdef. Use the noun form of update. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
• Delete - dicdef JoJan 4 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:27 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly redir to Update. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 11:42 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism, WP is not a slang guide --IByte 4 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)
• Deletion, WP not a repository for made-up words. -Splash July 4, 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with all the above. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:06 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted as patent nonsense JeremyA 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Meneber

Delete - nonsense. Rocky July 4, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

• Not quite nonsense, but it's close. Delete, with pickles. Alphax ^τεχ 4 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
• delete - nonsense and full of typos Spearhead 4 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• The lack of punctuation, wikification and capitalization makes this nonsense in my opinion. Speedy delete. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:29 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: patent nonsense, or at the very least, nonsense. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Speedy — if you can't make head-nor-tail of the article, it is patent nonsense. -Splash July 4, 2005 13:09 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cardboardia

This article is about a messageboard with very little internet presence. The site itself seems to be down, and this journal makes me believe that it's down about as often as it's up. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

• Delete. I've followed this article since its creation, and it's on my Watchlist, so I've been keeping a close eye on the edits. I've slowly begun to suspect that it was just a "messageboard vanity page" for a non-notable Internet messageboard. I'm relatively certain that's a correct assessment. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:45 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. 53 unique Googles and no Alexa data. Vanity. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Too many sock/meatpuppets. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a pity to kill so much work, but it's clearly not notable. Google search turns up few hits. This Wiki article in conjunction with entry on UrbanDictionary seem indicative of a tendancy towards self-aggrandizement on the part of Cardbordia's forum-goers. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
• Keep. While I don't have a Wikipedia account, I am PokeDigiManiac, one of the contributors to the article, and I wanted to correct a few misapprehensions that the previous voters might have had. Directed to Joy Stovall, the site is not down currently; however, only registered members can access it, in order to protect from s and other malicious acts. Additionally, the reason that this journal seems to reflect it being down most often is because, as mentioned in the article itself, it generally only sees use when the site is down. This can be noted by looking at the dates of posts in said journal - they all cluster around certain dates or short periods of time where the site was experiencing difficulty. In terms of notability, I agree that it is a very difficult thing to establish. However, I will state that the message board currently has 580 members. Beyond that, I leave it to you to judge. Additionally, in response to the charges of self-aggrandizement, said urbandictionary article (The link was incorrectly posted; however, I have now found the article that I believe Fernando Rizo was referencing here) was created by two personally motivated members, and should not be taken as a representation of Cardboardia as a whole. This article under question on Wikipedia is an attempt to gather as much information as possible and form it into a clear and detailed explanation of just what inspires over five hundred people to form a community that has lasted over two years (a rarity on the Internet). In any case, thank you for your fair considerations. 68.7.209.76 4 July 2005 06:25 (UTC) — (68.7.209.76's 11th edit.)
• Very Strong Keep Seeing that this whole nomination for a deletion was because someone found The Live Journal Site, I wish to set something straight. The LiveJournal account for Cardboardia is a system used by the administrators to alert the Cardboardian Members of any problems with Cardboardia. For example, if Cardboardia suddenly went down without any notice, Members would post their worrys and the Administrators would be able to alert the members of the problem. Now, I also notice that people seem to think this is 'not notable enough' to be on wikipedia. Googling something won't give you exact results, so don't base your decision off of that.chlorine July 4, 2005 06:43 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
• Delete, self-promotion for an unnotable website.--nixie 4 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
• Delete: about 200 Google hits, about 600 members, no Alexa ranking: notability not established. Sietse 4 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wish to know what your ideas of 'not notable ennough' are. Not notable to you? I hope you don't think that, just because you ran a google search, you believe it to be not notable enough? Have you done any true research on this topic, or have you jumped to conclusions? I have read other replys, and they give a very indepth reason for their vote to delete. If you are going to vote to permanently delete this, then put some good reason into it. That is all I ask. chlorine July 4, 2005 08:43 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
    • My reasons are the same as the rest. I agree with them, and saying any more would be redundant. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC) ref.
• Keep (Note, after reading the guidelines under votes for deletion I wish to point out that I am the Guesty Type Personification that authored half the article from my school's IP address of 203.87.121.161. This statement is not designed to call myself an authority on the subject or of the site, it is merely to avoid being called a sockpuppet) This site's guidelines for what constitutes a vanity article state 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' therefore google hits and alexa rankings seem irrelevant in this case. The aforementioned Urban Dictionary post seems to be a purely promotional entry by two overenthusiastic members out of approximately 600 and should not be taken as an example of all of us. The article itself is more informative than advertising. As Urban Dictionary has to guidelines as to self promotion that are readily enforced or advertised, posters feel free to enter whatever they feel and as such I would propose that the urban dictionary entry is irrelevant to this case. Considering the fact that the guidelines of Wikipedia state that a lack of fame is not indicative of a vanity article I would consider this article within the guidelines as the article states information but apart from some in-jokes meant purely sarcastically or as easter eggs for those members who would read this it is not saying whether the site is good or bad, merely describing the facts of its existance and history.--Guesty Type Personification 4 July 2005 18:04 (+9.5GMT) — (Moff's 8th edit.)
• Delete. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
• Delete. There's millions of sites out there with more than 600 members and this one isn't any more important than the rest of them. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:33 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no 'Wikipedia is not a webdictionary' section so I assume that you mean Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Under that guideline, Wikipedia negates entries that are dictionary definitions, Lists of such definitions or usage, slang or idiom guides. This entry fits none of those criteria. The point about various other sites with more than 600 members not having entries is superfluous. Unless you can site examples where a site in our situation has tried to get an article on Wikipedia and been rejected, the point does not count.--Moff
    • See this section. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 11:42 (UTC)
• Very weak keep and ruthlessly edit. The parts about what Cardboardia actually is could be considered somewhat notable. That's about 1/3 of the article. The rest (fictional history and whatnot) are not notable. Also, the tone of the article sounds like something from an online message board, not an encyclopedia. Bubamara 4 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
  • I did some of that ruthless editing. It could sure use some real content. Bubamara 4 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
• Delete, even after the edits. WP:NOT a webdirectory and esp not for non-notable sites.-Splash July 4, 2005 12:26 (UTC)
• Put it in a cardboardia box and ship it back where it came from. Delete RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
• Keep Okay, this is Hika, Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Admin of Cardboardia. While, obviously, I kind of am biased, I vote to Keep the Cardboardia article. For one thing, Cardboardia isn't just some stupid little message board. Okay, yeah, we have a measley 600 members, and we're not "notable" because we don't turn up enough hits on Google, or whatever. But among it's members, Cardboardia has evolved into it's own little culture - and while that culture might not even be on the radar for most, for its members, Cardboardia's a freakin' way of life. Where else can a topic that merely states the time of day turn into a thread about boobs, and most recently, pajamas? We have Wars (Podima Wars I, II, III, IV, V, that one war VZG had against the sun, the Darkeru war that got covered up...), invasions, marriages, children (so many children!), and HOLIDAYS. Holy hell, we have "national" holidays. Not only that, but through SEVERAL bouts of extreme drama, including a majorly bad , a fight between myself and Keru, several of the older members up and leaving, and personal dramas of its members, Cardboardia has held through for almost three years (the original Pub having been started in August 2002). And while all of this certaintly doesn't make Cardboardia bigger or more notable, it does make it extremely UNIQUE. All of us Cardboardians are a family (through the several marriages and, y'know, figuratively speaking). There's a little thread that holds all of us together, and it will for the rest of our lives. Cardboardia's a big thing for most of us, and even though I know I won't be around Cardboardia forever, chances are I'm not going to forget it. It's almost like one of those shows/books/movies where kids find a portal to some totally awesome dimension - a world all their own. To us, it's like that. And really, you can't call this whole thing "shameless self promotion" - most Cardboardians, and ESPECIALLY ME, tend to be suspicious of "newbies." In fact, if no one ever came to the board again except those that existed already, I'd be perfectly happy. Who wants new blood when you got a great group of people already? No, we aren't looking to pimp Cardboardia... at least, not to get us tons of new members. We just want an article on Wikipedia. Is that so much to ask? — (Unsigned comment by Hika; user's 1st edit.)
  • It's a great history you wrote; I think the only complaints of the Wikipedians here is that it is more appropriate on an About Cardboardia page on your own website, not on Wikipedia—a sentiment with which I am inclined to agree. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 16:29 (UTC)
• Delete Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
• Delete nn RasputinAXP 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Comment: As the user Aaron Hill once said: We have articles about schools of 500 kids, so can't we have articles about a 600 member messageboard? I feel the need to quote from the Wikipedia guide to voting for deletion. Because, clearly, you still don't understand.Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional You don't have to vote on every nomination; even consider not participating if:
  • A nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant;
  • Consensus you agree with has already been formed. Chlorine July 4, 2005 19:07 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
• Delete, not notable. Oy vey. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
• Comment The 'ruthless edit' has completely foregone the point of the article. It was about the culture and history of the people, not the layout of the board. We don't need to read an article on board layout, we wrote it to put our culture there, the stuff that has been left after said edit completely misses the point and makes the article look like a vanity page moreso than what our original article was. I agree the fictional history might not belong on Wikipedia but the rest of history, the rest of culture should not have been deleted.
  • I agree that it wasn't my most nuanced bit of editing. But count the votes here, Cardboardians - this page is about to be deleted unless it changes drastically. Please edit it to reflect wikipedia's standard of quality. See the Talk:Cardboardia page for more comments. Bubamara 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
    • We would, see, but everything keeps being deleted. Hika
  • Comment The only people who are likely to come to Wikipedia for information about Cardbordian "culture" are Cardbordians. This article fits the definition of vanity if only because the only people who are aware of the subject are the subjects themselves. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • It's a good piece of culture, but why not put it on your website instead of on Wikipedia? It would probably be much more useful there, anyway. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 23:26 (UTC)
• Delete 53 Google hits and a side of meatpuppets makes this non-notable. Xoloz 5 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
  • Comment 'Meatpuppet has two meanings. A) the male genetalia, B) An 80's punk band. I assume you mean sockpuppet(comment by anon user:60.231.225.2)
    • "Sockpuppet" assumes that one person creates many usernames and votes through them. Since now there seems to be many physical members of the board that come here to vote, that is analogous to recruiting your friends to register in order to vote for you, hence "meatpuppetry" - Skysmith 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
• Delete, not a webdirectory/ .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 05:46 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely vanity (from multiple sources), no significance outside its own circle, one of the thousands of small-scale web boards with their own subculture. I am sure you may be close circle of friends, but that is not so unusual, either - every other similar web-based group can make the same claim. And; I wouldn't support inclusion of all the schools, but even they are more significant - Skysmith 5 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)
• Delete Only people voting keep are the ones using the website. Your own little corner of the world is important to you, yes, but it doesn't make it encyclopedia material. The various "This is about my website, don't delete it" votes don't help the case. Friday 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Organisational tables of self-selecting fan-fic communes are not encyclopedic. The subject is insufficiently culturally different from miniscule fan-fic communes in general to be of encyclopedic note. Hurrah for the communally based onanism of rich Westerners. Wank that lit. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting article on a very unique topic. Furthermore, I know of several TOWNS that are less notable than this website. (Population of 10 and 4 Google hits excluding three-word references.) I think it's worth keeping. Besides, what harm could it do? Calime July 8, 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to stay out of this one, but I can't pass that up. A town is a physical object and will persist even if everyone who lived there gots up and walked away. It has a continued presence seperate from it's population. Thus a town of five hundred in much more notable than a messageboard of five hundred. and I would vote to delete a town of that size that was in no other way notable without a second thought. Because, "what harm can it do" misses some important points:
    • Noise will chase out signal. Every junk trivial article takes up space on search results pages, editor's time, and even an almost (but not quite) insignificant space on a disk. This is an encyplopedia, and should function as such.
    • There are forms, conventions, guidelines... ok rules although we don't like to use that word. This article and this discussion ignores those guidelines.

Read the writing on the wall, or insert your own cliché here. Please, just let this die with no further fuss. ADB 9 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep It is of my strongest belief that you should keep this page because it is not a vanity page. A vanity page would be something like, "LOOKATME! I'MWONDERFUL! JOINORDIE, plzkthxbai!" And you say that we use "meatpuppetry" to try and save our article. We don't need "meatpuppetry". What kind of Cardboardians would we be if we did not try and defend ourselves? We Cardboardians are trying to share our culture and history with the rest of the world, and we cannot even begin to if the article is deleted. Many of the people who have said "delete" do not even know what Cardboardia is truly like. And many, I'm sure, have said "delete" because of what 'evidence' that previous people have given. It sickens me to see the world in such a state that those who try to share their messageboard's unique atmosphere with other people cannot. I implore you to keep the article. It is a true diamond in the rough. ArtemisSakura July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  • User has three edits, two in this VFD and recently-created user page - Skysmith 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the 'Not notable enough' votes should be excluded, because it had been established that by Wikipedia rules, that an entry doesn't have to be notable to be on wikipedia. — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
  • On the contrary; votes from very new users are instead discounted as a general rule.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:08 (UTC)
    • Not if they are by the author of the page. As far as I know, there were four authors to this page before the ruthless edit. Chlorine, Flippancy, Pokedigimaniac and myself(Moff). A couple of which haven't had accounts before they made the article in question, thus the lack of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Comment The critera by which something can be declared "not notable" apply to personal biographies, musical groups and webcomics. Thus any attempt to apply these criterea to this article is inherently flawed.

• No Vote. No link means we can't look it up... Almafeta 17:06, 12 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 Dunc|☺ 18:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Kala Jahangir

This is a criminal, but not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia.

• Delete: Non-notable criminal, wikipedia doesn't have articles on each and every criminal of every country. --Ragib 4 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)
• Delete - unless made to look notable--Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:59 (UTC)
• Comment - In it's present form the article is rubbish, but the subject may have some notability. [4] Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
• Delete non notable crim. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
• Comment I would vote keep for even a decent stub. This fellow is a notable terrorist in Bangladesh as the article from Fernando Rizo indicates. However, the article as it stands does not indicate notability so it should be deleted unless expansion occurs. Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  • Thanks for info Ragib. DeleteCapitalistroadster 4 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Just a correction here, Kala Jahangir is a criminal, not a terrorist (being from Bangladesh, I can attest to that). There are hundreds of thousands of criminals who are convicted of this crime or other in every country. Not all of them get articles. --Ragib 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

• Delete, NN, not extraordinary. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
• Delete - NN JoJan 4 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to FireWire. – Alphax ^τεχ 4 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

I.link

This overlaps with the information already found at IEEE_1394. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

• It's a redirect. :) - Keep --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
  • Ilink is a redirect but I.link is not. Voting Redirect to IEEE_1394 - Thatdog 4 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
    • Odd, I mistyped! ;) Speedily redirected. --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)
• Redirect: IEEE 1394 redirects to FireWire. I.link, as well as Ilink, should redirect to FireWire. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 deleete Dunc|☺ 19:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Don Pancho

I created this article April 17 last year. Pancho (not to be confused with the Hotel chain) didnt reach the final of Popstars and hasnt done very much since, Delete. Iam July 4, 2005 06:16 (UTC)

• Delete. You actually watched Popstars 2004? Anyway, this ain't notable any more. Harro5 July 4, 2005 07:08 (UTC)
• Delete as per your wishes. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:09 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 transwiki to wiktionary. Dunc|☺ 18:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mezanmi

WP:WINAD. This is a foreign language dicdef. Already been transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)

• Delete - Dicdef JoJan 4 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
• Delete: going, going, gone. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
• Delete foreign dicdef already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armchair Position

This page has returned --Bedel23 July 4, 2005 07:21 (UTC)

I've changed the template to {{deleteagain}}. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Too bad this kind of rubbish is not speedy deletable. Not that I'm a prude - it's that the writing is so pathetic. Denni☯ 23:34, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• Cleanup or Delete and let the redlink in list of sex positions stand. Uncle G 04:27, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Cleanup or Delete as per Uncle G. There could one day be a good article there but this isn't it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopaedic as is. Megan1967 10:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've cleaned it up a little to make it more encyclopaedic, please re-vote. (Anonymous) 22:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons. Vegaswikian 05:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not an encyclopedia article. JamesBurns 09:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit 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 @Dunc|☺ 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

John Part

*NN, POV, "he is a cock." Vote to Delete. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

• Keep, in light of recent edits. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search shows that he has some notability in the sports world. "he is a cock" appears to be a recent vandalism and was not in earlier versions of the article. - Thatdog 4 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. "John Part" + darts gets around 6400 google hits including a BBC interview [5]. It appears to have been vandalised, as mentioned above. Leithp July 4, 2005 08:14 (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 (though it could have been speedied asnonsense) Dunc|☺ 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Gavin

not notable enough; perhaps after deciding the color of his hair, he can achieve some notability ? JoJan 4 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

• Delete: not enough? Not at all. Bloody teenagers... --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
• Delete. Bubamara 4 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
• Delete a single Google hit, and he most certainly was not placed 4th in the Winter Olympics!-Splash July 4, 2005 13:12 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, probable vanity. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm unable to find verification for any of these claims. - Thatdog 4 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
• Delete non notable possible teen vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:14 (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 Dunc|☺ 18:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Star Adrael

Delete. Not notable. Though wikified, the text of this article come from the subject's site. Google results yield only posts by the subject. Bubamara 4 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Subject may wish to userfy, but as the text is from elsewhere online already I'd not keep the page for that reason. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
• Delete, NN, could be vanity. Just a guy with a lot of time. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, NN. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
• Delete Karaoke nn. --WCFrancis 5 July 2005 13:49 (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 07:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Science and Consciousness Review

Should this go in the "External links" section of consciousness instead? —Ghakko 4 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

• Delete. It may be relevant to the above mentioned article (it should be checked for relevance and academic merit), but certainly doesn't warrant an article. Harro5 July 4, 2005 09:28 (UTC)
• Speedy - as an article whose contents consist only of an external link. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)
• Speedy, as per the above vote. Not a link repository, and etc. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - This is a legitimate site and does warrant a separate article, so long as that article is longer than a sentence. GabrielF 4 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - The organization smacks of psuedoscience at first, but it may not be. At least two members of the journal's editorial board listed on the website have EnWiki entries of their own (Christof Koch and Walter Freeman). I call this one notable. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

• Comment I can assure you that it is legitimate science - Ned Block and Patricia Churchland are on the editorial board as well. This is an area which science is just starting to be able to address because of the cognitive revolution in psychology.

• Weak Keep and expand. This is borderline. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
• Weak Merge as per Ghakko. The page seems useful, but adding the link still feels a bit like advertising. --IByte 5 July 2005 16:04 (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 Dunc|☺ 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Aynarchists

This is an unreferenced personal essay about a sub-strand of discontented anarchists (isn't that an oxymoron?). Its POV, names no believers of the cause, and shows no proof that the political belief exists further than the anon's bedroom. Harro5 July 4, 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Delete - google shows 1 link of this term Spearhead 4 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism, which I've never encountered in decades in libertarian circles. *Dan* July 4, 2005 11:41 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, neologism, nn for 0 Google hits. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
• Delete original work. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
• If this page is kept, it should be moved to Aynarchism. Michael Hardy 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:16 (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. Woohookitty 07:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As Seen On TV

Amazon and Google both failed to return any results for a book called "As Seen On TV" by Chris Kerr. The book is apparantly only in print in the UK, and the article seems to be spam. Non-notable, spam, etc. Alphax ^τεχ 4 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

• Keep. I didn't seem to have any trouble finding this book on Google. [6] Also, the fact that it is only in print in the UK does not mean it isn't notable. I'll clean it up a bit. Bubamara 4 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
• Keep: as above. Anser 4 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect to As seen on TV if deleted. NSR 4 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given the unusual nature of case sensitivity on wikipedia (i.e. EBay and PH are used instead of eBay and pH), it would be better not to have pages that differ only in upper/lower case characters direct to different pages. Merge? StuartH 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• Keep, quite a few google hits and worth an entry jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)
• Keep, valid book stub. —RaD Man (talk) 5 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
• Comment: I still fail to see how the article establishes notability. Alphax ^τεχ 6 July 2005 05:31 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Rebecca Birch

Looks like a hoax, I couldn't find any relevant google hits. I did find a relevant VFD here though. Leithp July 4, 2005 11:03 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax, you're right. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
• Speedied as hoax/nonsense. 0 google hits for "Zerk's Day Off", "Klangor Meets the Martians", or even "The Sweet Sweet Lorsey Horse Adventures", none of the hits for "Rebecca Birch" was relevant. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 keep Dunc|☺ 18:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Carter Observatory

Obsolete and irrelevent bunch of elderly time-wasters contributing nothing to Professional astronomy or Physics. Vote speedy delete.

• Speedy Keep. The anonymous dial-up user who's suggesting this is a troll who's been vandalising the page all day. Izogi 4 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable New Zealand observatory. Given this is a nomination by an anonymous user can an admin close this as a keep. Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)
• Keep this observatory as well. NSR 4 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Vote to note that this IP is a vandal. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Google gives 10200 hits [7], it's definitely notable Cyclone49 4 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Keep — The nominator of this article is highly PoV. This article appears reasonable. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Keep Valuable local history. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
• Keep some notability. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Trolling nomination. Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 02:24 (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 Dunc|☺ 19:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gifford Observatory

Just another small amateur observatory with antique equipment, contributing nothing to Professional astronomy or physics. Vote speedy delete.

• Speedy Keep. The anonymous dial-up user who's suggesting this is a troll who's been vandalising the page all day. Izogi 4 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR 4 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly worth an entry jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, as reporter is vandal. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Keep, it's definitely notable Cyclone49 4 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable observatory. This raises the question: if anonymous votes aren't counted why are anonymous nominations taken seriously.Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
• Comment - that's an excellent point. Why are they??? --Mothperson 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
  • Comment anonymous votes and nominations should be taken seriously and counted, unless bad faith can be proved. Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
    • Comment I realise you're also referring to the general case, and it's a fair enough comment although I'm not sure I agree with it. Out of interest given the recent edit history of this anonymous user, though, do you believe this nomination isn't in bad faith? For examples, look for similar-looking IP's in the edit history of Gifford Observatory, Carter Observatory, Benmore Peak Observatory, Stardome Observatory, and Farm cove observatory. If you look carefully at the Benmore Peak delete nomination page, you'll note that this particular user has actually voted twice to have it deleted. Izogi 5 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)
      • Comment You're a pathetic whinging git, McGavin. Just because you can't get a job as a professional astromomer you attempt to make amateurs like yourself seem useful and important instead.
• and, obviously, keep ---Mothperson 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• It's only notable attribute appears to be its age, although the article is interesting enough. The issue of contributions to Professional astronomy is irrelevant, though, as it's contributing to public education. Still the telescope is pretty puny. I'm going to pass. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• Comment - Well in my opinion the telescope isn't anywhere near as relevant as its historical significance. The observatory is noteworthy because:
  • it was established by an astronomer who was very well-known in Wellington and New Zealand at the time,
  • it was used a lot by William Pickering (who went on to run JPL through its pioneering unmanned space missions) while growing up, and he's stated in the past that the facility really strengthened his interest in space and astronomy,
  • it's still operating and relevant in Wellington today, and there are things to write about it. Izogi 4 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Keep some notability. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Trolling nomination. Grutness...wha? 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe the problem is that the Astronomical observatories category is unclear about whether it's supposed to be for research observatories or not. Gifford's not worth noting for any recent serious academic contribution to astronomical research, so perhaps it shouldn't be listed there, or the category should be reorganised. It's a significant structure for a heap of other reasons, though, and deleting the page entirely is just wrong. Izogi 7 July 2005 01:19 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as very short article with no context. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Intersoft

Delete. There's no content, just contact info for some company. I tried (a little) to look it up, but the name is so generic, I didn't get anywhere. Bubamara 4 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

• Speedy delete anything that doesn't string together a coherent sentence. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 11:30 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, nonsense. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)
• Speedy delete very short articles providing little or no context. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 deletee (nonsense) Dunc|☺ 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Samir al-Sumaidai

Tagged as speedy without reason given, while the mentioned interview should make this verifiable. I'm unsure whether the UN had a Iraqi ambassador though. Bringing it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 11:28 (UTC)

• Delete: the article isn't even about him, it's about his relatives and it reads like a newspaper. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
• Delete: Same reson Groeck 4 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even correct; Iraq's ambassador to the UN is Mohammed Aldouri. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:20 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Charles Reid

Blatantly obvious vanity. If someone's going to write your biography eventually let them. But a Wikipedia entry should state why someone is important. And then there's also a WP:BIO. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

• delete blatant, yet nonsensical, vanity Robinh 4 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)
• Delete, too much time on his hands jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense...if possible, just for that top section. Otherwise Delete. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, not notable. Groeck 4 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was it's a copyvio. The article was tagged as such. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 07:54 (UTC)

Frugalware

Wikipedia isn't an FAQ. Delete - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 12:06 (UTC)

• If it's non notable, delete, if it's notable keep and expand/rewrite. --129.217.139.206 4 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
  • It's certainly notable and under active development. The article needs clean-up, I agree the FAQ part should go. Why not give it a chance? Strong keep.--129.217.139.206 4 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)
• Delete - No, this is not notable, although the subject might be, this article is beyond redemption as it appears to be cut-and-paste from elsewhere. And bear in mind, anonymous user, that your comments will carry lots more weight if you sign in and give yourself a name - it's free, so why not give it a go? Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Too lazy. For the moment, anyway. I'm not affiliated with them if you're worried, although I'm afraid you'll have to take an AC's word on it. ;) The distribution is listed on DistroWatch and has gotten front page mentions on various central Linux sites like newsforge. This establishes its notability in my view. --129.217.139.206 4 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
    • Agreed, definitely notable. But, it's a copyvio at the moment, so it'll have to be deleted and restarted. Definitely a place for it here, though. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
      • Yes, I guess it's hard to argue with that. I registered an account, btw. Justified paragraphs, cool. --Moritz 4 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a copyvio from the Frugalware website, so I'll start the copyvio process. The subject is notable, though, so this should be started over. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, Splash's on the case. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)
• This is a {{copyvio}} from here. I've marked it as such. -Splash July 4, 2005 13:02 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was This article was nominated for deletion on July 4, 2005, but the vote was a unanimous keep. Meelar (talk) 15:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The System of the World (novel)

DELETE - THIS IS ADVERTISING A NOVEL. by User:66.68.202.116

This was never posted to the log, so I'm completing this process. This does look like a vandal, I agree, but summarily closing an unposted VfD is unusual so I thought I'd bring it here. -Splash July 4, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

• Keep. Stating the book exists is not advertising it. Maybe you misread the article as "THIS IS A NOVEL TO BE ADMIRED"? — JIP | Talk 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

*Notice: this IP is a vandal taking revenge because two of his pages are going to be deleted. I am closing this VfD, as such. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

• I'm not too happy with a summary closing of a VfD by a non-admin. It wasn't even listed on the log properly; a VfD is rarely closed early, more usually the probable vandal is given a slap on the wrist and after a couple of keep votes, nothing else happens until, after 5 days, someone closes to keep. I've also reinstated the VfD tag on the page. If an admin wants to close this discussion and remove the tag, I would raise absolutely no objection at all. -Splash July 4, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

• So, I vote keep.Splash July 4, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• I don't realize why we have to do this, as this is obviously malicious vandalism by the IP (I've reported him, by the way). But, whatever. Strong Keep. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Good to report them. I just think that following process is the way to go, and, like I said, I wouldn't object to an early close if that was done by an admin (just because it's out-of-process). -Splash July 4, 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Aye, the report was acted on, quite fast I might add. I just asked an admin to come by and close this VfD, if appropriate I suppose. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

• Keep. Bad faith VfD. El_C 4 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a rash of anonymous nominations. Notable novel by notable author.Capitalistroadster 4 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
• Keep. It's sitting on my shelf waiting for me to get around to reading it. Seems like a malicious nomination as mentioned above. Leithp July 4, 2005 14:53 (UTC)
• Speedy keep malicious nomination. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Keep Huh? JYOuyang 7 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• The article needs some work, but there is no need to delete it. Vandalism by a bogus VfD nomination - keep. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tony Newell

Either non-existant person, or person claiming to do things that they just did not do. Xtra 4 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. As above. Xtra 4 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your use of the term Patent nonsense does not appear to match Wikipedia guidelines (vanity pages don't fall into this category). Fortunately the page was deleted. --IByte 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Don't know what happened to the page, I'll assume it's been speedy'd, but I agree. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
  • I have already speedied it three times, along with another page or two of complete fiction cleverly written to look real on first sight. The vandal did not respond to messages on his talk page and is now blocked. Tannin 4 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
    • Still up at Tony newell (note the lowercase "n"). J.K. 4 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
• Speedy this and all of its persistent re-creations by 203.40.xxx.xxx; it is a hoax. Anyone who is a "household name" and did all that stuff would have some trace on Google. Antandrus (talk) 5 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

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

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 deleteDunc|☺ 19:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Community communications

Looks like an advertisement, certainly not NPOV. Delete page. IByte 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

• Delete, advertisement, non-notable, POV rubbish. - Aaron Hill July 4, 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Definitely not an advertisement (?), but rather an synopsis of a quasi-religious organisation's beliefs. est and Church_of_Scientology have entries.

• Delete oh yes it is an ad: it's from here. However, I've not marked it as {{copyvio}} since that website includes no copyright notice. If someone who knows the rules reckons it can still be copyvio'd that'd be great. -Splash July 4, 2005 13:16 (UTC)
  • Delete, mark copyvio. I don't believe a notice is required to establish copyright. No writer is acknowledged nor is there a PD notice, so it is therefore copyrighted, one way or another. I would mark the page as copyvio. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
    • You're right, lack of copyright notice doesn't make it free to use (see Copyright#Copyright_notices).--Jyril July 4, 2005 19:54 (UTC)
• Comment: On a closer look at the page (which was still heavily expanded after the VfD) it appears that it was written by opponents of this cult-like organisation as a warning. However, I still think that the page is inappropriate for Wikipedia in its present form. --IByte 4 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely agree, this is inappropriate. Groeck 4 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--Jyril July 4, 2005 19:54 (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 Merge & Redirect to Clifton College Dunc|☺ 19:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Clifton College Register

This is a book about Clifton College. This page however duplicates Clifton College. All encyclopedic information, (a list of famous old boys, and all headmasters) are already included the Clifton College article. The rest of the page is a short description of Clifton College (duplicating what is already in Clifton College) and some subtrivia about who was the 100th pupil listed in the book. I was going to say redirect to Clifton College, but since there's a guard on it I'm going to vote delete. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

• Merge, no redir. This isn't a book about the college, it's a record of its inhabitants. Nonetheless, I vote to merge with Clifton College, but not redirect. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep - redirect is not right. A curate's egg 4 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Jaxl 4 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Merge. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
• Merge - keeping the redirect is harmless (isn't it?). -- Joolz 4 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
• Merge. Merging any substantial information and deleting the article isn't an option under the GFDL because of the substantial editing history. I must confess I don't understand what is supposed to be achieved by deleting an article after merging in any case, unless there were a problem with the name, which there isn't in this case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
• Merge as per the others; redirect is not right, though it is interesting to note that John Cleese went there. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
• Merge. Keeping the redirect is required by the GFDL to preserve the full article history. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 20:32 (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 07:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NFL Championship Game, 1966

one-liner, and there's so many NFL related article I'm sure that one line could go somewhere else Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

• Delete: even if it was a good game...POV, and too small a topic for a page. I'm sure the team pages have the info. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Delete. Sportscruft. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
• Keep. There should be an article about this. There are articles on every Super Bowl (Category:Super Bowl). It is a stub and tone isn't perfect but it is a start. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
• Comment I guess I asking for it when I left it as a red link on one of the NFL playoff articles. We have not yet decided what to do with playoff games before 1967 when there was only one playoff game per year, the championship game, was held. Frankly, I currently do not really care if it is deleted or not. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
• On beginning to clean-up, I find out that the 1966 Championship game is not as indicated in the article. I don't know that Cleveland has ever played against Dallas. Delete and let someone who knows about such things write the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect it was intended to be vandalism. The two teams that actually played were Green Bay and Dallas. Frankly, I would prefer not to have this version in the page history. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
• Delete, probably not notable even if a decent article were created, and certainly not when a fictional account of the game is given. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 19:12 (UTC)
• Comment. I would vote to delete this article. However, it would be worth having a legitimate article on this game given that it was the championship game for a very popular sport in the US. Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Delete POV, not notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
• Expand. NFL championships are notable, which is why we have articles on each Super Bowl ever played. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
• Comment Per National Football League championships, it looks like we have an ambiguity -- the author presumably meant the championship following the 1965 season, which would have been held in 1966, because that was the game that included the Browns. --Arcadian 7 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

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

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 Dunc|☺ 19:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jolly Fun Pack

vanity page, check contribs by the person who created it, he made tons of pages about himself and related subjects Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: Google = 0, neologism, crap. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
• Delete - Fuzheado | Talk 4 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
• Undelete It is just more information like everything else on Wikipedia 4 July 2005 12:03 (EST) (Thevenerablez)
• Delete - unverified neologism. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 4, 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• Delete per Alex12 3. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 19:11 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
• Comment This page has been restored after attempted deletion by Thevenerablez. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 18:32 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, unencylopedic, not even amusing. carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
• Someone appears to have tampered with the VfD header. I put it back up, and vote Delete. --IByte 01:30, 10 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 #Dunc|☺ 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexander craven griffiths

vanity Elfguy 4 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

• Delete: sheer crap. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)
• Delete: poorly written article about a topic I can't find anywhere, probably a vanity page --IByte 4 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
• Delete, either unverifiable vanity or a complete hoax. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 00:38 (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 Deleted I will create a short article at CRISP to link to the original source Stewart Adcock 20:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

List of biomedical terms

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The cited article is just a placeholder for 27 long articles containing nothing but lists of terms:

• List of biomedical topics (numbers)
• List of biomedical topics, A
• List of biomedical topics, B
• List of biomedical topics, C
• List of biomedical topics, D
• List of biomedical topics, E
• List of biomedical topics, F
• List of biomedical topics, G
• List of biomedical topics, H
• List of biomedical topics, I
• List of biomedical topics, J
• List of biomedical topics, K
• List of biomedical topics, L
• List of biomedical topics, M
• List of biomedical topics, N
• List of biomedical topics, O
• List of biomedical topics, P
• List of biomedical topics, Q
• List of biomedical topics, R
• List of biomedical topics, S
• List of biomedical topics, T
• List of biomedical topics, U
• List of biomedical topics, V
• List of biomedical topics, W
• List of biomedical topics, X
• List of biomedical topics, Y
• List of biomedical topics, Z

all of which I'm proposing for deletion. I only put the {{subst:vfd}} tag on the first one, because doing it 27 more times was too painful (and seemed rather pointless).

This is a huge list of terms imported from a thesaurus found on an NIH web site. They appear to be keywords culled from research grant applications. The problems are several. The vast majority don't link to anywhere. Many of the concepts have corresponding articles, but not under those exact names. It appears that the source is updated weekly, which means this list is out of date almost immediately. This is a mindless import of data, with no added encyclopedic value. See Talk:List of biomedical terms for more info.

This was on VfD recently in a slightly different form, and was voted to keep, but it appears to have been largely by default with little or no discussion and almost no voter input. I think it's worth another round, if only to build a strong consensus one way or the other.

RoySmith 4 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

• Delete All. What a dump. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
• Delete and someone teach him about categories. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Hi Elfgy this comment may refer to something I did when I broke up these pages. Could you clarify what you mean so I can learn how to do it correctly in the future? David D. 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I answered off-line at User talk:Daycd --RoySmith 5 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

• Delete all Groeck 4 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia namespace. A lot of these articles could still be encyclopedic, and as with other lists may serve as a guide for editors. I do agree it should not be in article namespace. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• Merge with medicine and (bio)chemistry WikiProjects in Wikipedia namespace. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these; can you provide a link to them? --RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

• Eeek! Okay, time for an articlectomy. Delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and also possible copyvio. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

To be fair to the whoever started this, it's almost certainly not a copyvio, since it (apparently) comes from the NIH web site, and the US government doesn't assert copyright. RoySmith 4 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

• Delete all or move out of article space. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
  • Move as per OpenToppedBus. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:12 (UTC) reverting to old vote :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
• Merge as per Mgm. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
• Delete all. I originally split these into the separate pages (original sizes were huge) but realised that they were worthless as I proceeded through the job. As i said on the talk page for these lists, many of the topics in these lists are red links since they are not articles or stubs and never will be. Unless someone is willing to manually fix the links to the appropriate pages these lists will never be a useful indexing aid. For example the topic antisense nucleic acid should be a redirect to Antisense mRNA. We certainly do not want another antisense page yet these lists are almost invitations to start a new article. David D. 5 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Move per JFW. Sietse 5 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless pages. Why would anyone consult this page? DanMS 5 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
• Purge the lists of the existing articles and turn them into something like Wikipedia:List of missing biomedical articles - Skysmith 5 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

But are they missing articles? I think this is the main problem with this list. Do we want these articles? Why invite people to create articles that will eventually become merged or redirected? Why don't we focus on the important gaps. There are already wanted articles lists in wikipedia. The difference is that those articles have been requested for a reason. David D. 5 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

• As per the above, as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, I am happy to volunteer to purge, reformat and create Wikipedia:List of missing biomedical articles. Rather than deleting these outright, they can be moved either to Wikipedia space or alternatively to subpages of my user page. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 13:50 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake. I just took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. It says (in big friendly letters), The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available. That may be a laudable goal, but wholesale importation of this list isn't going to advance it. This isn't a list of somebody else's encyclopedia articles, it's a list of keywords from a database of research grants. It's not even clear that they came from a controlled vocabulary, such as MeSH. What if somebody created List of every professional athelete who ever played in any sport? What about List of every license plate number ever issued in the US? Would those be worthy of becomming List of missing encyclopedia articles? RoySmith 5 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

You know what - you're right, and I should have done more research first. We should certainly be looking out for a medical encyclopedia, and looking to match its coverage, but this list isn't it. It's more than just keywords, if you look at CRISP, but it is only a thesaurus, a controlled vocabulary. There are a huge number of terms in there that we should have articles for, but probably at least an equal number that we shouldn't, and there's no way (without specific knowledge of the topics, which I don't have) to tell which is which. Changing my vote to delete, unless anyone more knowledgeable wants to take it on. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

• Delete all for more reasons than I can count. I have faith that Wikipedia will soundly tackle the universe of necessary articles on biomedical terms without these eternal redlink monstrosities. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Addendum, I just went through "G" and deleted entries for: garlic, grain, gravity, great ape, green tea, Greece, Greek, grief, ground water, ground hog, and ground squirrel. These are simply not biomedical terms. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't do that! 'Garlic' and 'green tea' have well know medicinal properties. The 'greeks' have healthy food and 'grief' can be stressful leading to real medical issues. Not sure about great apes, are they model systems for medical research? OK I hope it's obvious I'm being sarcastic, ground hog, and ground squirrel for real?????? Let's just get rid of it. It is a worthless list. David D. 00:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but if this is deleted, add the red links to Wikipedia:Requested articles first. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:44 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this above but here it is again. They should definitely not be requested articles. Why invite people to create articles that will eventually become merged or redirected? Why don't we focus on the important gaps? There are already many requested article lists in wikipedia with some very important topics that need to be started. The difference is that those articles have been requested for a reason. This is just a random list. Most of them are not missing articles. David D. 22:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

This should not be deleated. It does provide a great way of redirection of definitions not found elsewhere.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Moved to SOKOL, awaiting promised expansion. Stewart Adcock 21:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

SOKOL Aircraft Building Plant

Delete. Non-notable, in my opinion. Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

• Keep. From the company website ([8]): one of the leading companies of airspace industry in Russia ... Within the years 1932 through 2002 [the plant] produced 43557 aircraft. Notability established, in my opinion. Sietse 4 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

But this article is about the plant that produces the planes, not the company itself. --Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:49 (UTC)

If you think that the company is notable, whereas the plant itself is not, then maybe we should just move this article to Nizhny Novgorod Aircraft building plant Sokol (the name of the company) instead of deleting it. As far as I can tell from the company website, the company operates only this plant, so the article can more or less stay intact. Sietse 4 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

• Keep, Merge, or Move. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, but it's clear that this is too notable to delete. RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
• Move and expand. Seems notable enough. Jaxl 4 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Move and expand. SOKOL is quite notable and I'm surprised that there's no article yet. Move article to SOKOL. I'll gladly help with the expansion myself. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
• Move and expand as per Fernando Rizo. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
• Move and expand to SOKOL. It's not the plant itself but the company that's significant. carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:22 (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 07:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

HansaWorld

No relevancy established, seems to be just an ad, too little for even a stub, unwikified, ... Delete. S.K. 4 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising Groeck 4 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Why are we even wasting time on this obvious advertising/spam? RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the current article is an acceptable stub. They claim to have 300 employees and 64,000 customers. Notable enough, in my opinion. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
• weak Delete. IT companies grow on trees. I don't see what's so notable about this one. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
• Well, it does have 20000 Google hits, which approaches notability. Still, delete because the entry seems to exist to promote an external link as advertising. Xoloz 5 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. If they're notable, I'll assume some third party will write about them. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:13 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Although it is very close to linkspamming, I believe their accounting software is widely used here in Sweden at least, but accounting software is not really a field I know very well. But if it is deleted, it should probably take its CEO, Karl Bohlin, with it. There was a late 19th/early 20th century Swedish astronomer named Karl Bohlin who probably deserves the article space better (the software guy may be his grandson or great grandson or something). Uppland 08:01, 11 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 Dunc|☺ 19:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dike D

Delete. Non-notable. No related Google hits. No "what links here" articles. No article substance. Looks like just a platform for external link. Zpb52 July 4, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
• Delete: useless. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Delete; nothing relevant on google. Jaxl 4 July 2005 18:59 (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. Almost a tie vote. Woohookitty 07:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

• I vote to keep this section. Projects like this foster the community spirit that is the very reason why Wikipedia exists. - Rajesh 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Strong keep. See the precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship, which was kept. It's a reasonable community-building activity. It's not just "playing it online" - as doing it elsewhere would defeat the whole point of community building. The point is to strengthen community relationships. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
• Comment: The very fact that there is plenty of free (and better) chess online proves the desire for Wikipedia community-building. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. (besides, I'm in the middle of a game right now!) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Keep Comment I am very much in favour of the chess championship which is a semi-official wikipedia tournament. I think that is fine, and should definitely be encouraged. I didn't have a problem with the sandbox-games before, but it seems to be getting slightly out of hand. There are nine games going on right now. I am divided, on one hand it is like "what's the harm", but also if you use the wiki solely for playing these games, why not do it on wikicities? If you want to play a friendly game with another editor, fine, set it up in your user-space, but having a centralized place to play from, well..., as I said I'm divided. Ohh, and also, can we merge the three other VfDs into this one calling it Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox games or something, it would be much more practical. gkhan July 4, 2005 17:26 (UTC)You know what, I change my mind. The slippery slope argument is a weak one and if/when it gets out of hand we can stop it then. Let people have their harmless fun for the time being. gkhan July 4, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
• Neutral: – I would like to have it here (75%-keep), but if the server load increases too much, then I think it should be moved to wikicities. I've never used the wikicities though. How do we measure the server load? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 4, 2005 18:28 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
• Move & Projectfy at Wikipedia:Department of fun, with related games (below), unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
• Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Keep - "strain on server resources" is not a criteria for deletion. As long as "Department of Fun" is acceptable, no grounds for deletion. Guettarda 5 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

  After reading the mailing list I realise that there are legitimate concerns surrounding these issues. Nonetheless, they should be decided upon as policy issues, not via VfD. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

• Strong delete. WP is NOT a game server! — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

• Keep. Probably would have voted to delete had this been entirely new (like I have done with the checkers counterpart), but this has established itself in the sandbox, is good for community building and should not be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
• E2 - E4. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Neutral. Some of the logic offered in connection with votes here and at the other game-related VFD's makes me wonder: If the purpose of Wikipedia is only to create an encyclopedia (which is the starting point for many votes) then could the following pages fall into the "not relevant to creating an encyclopedia, pulls too many resources, creates extra RC patrol work, and therefore must be deleted" category? The entire Wikipedia:Department of Fun for obvious reasons. Wikipedia:Reference Desk because they can look it up in the encyclopedia, or "go to another (reference desk) site". All user pages becasue it doesn't matter about the users, it's about the encyclopedia, and if they want to talk about themselves, they can do it at a private hosting site. All user sandboxes because they can draft it in the article space or go to an outside editing site. Featured pictures/picture of the day because pictures should be about articles and not about pictures on their own, and anyone who wants to look at random pictures "can go to another site." The entire "Wikipedia:" namespace because we're here to write articles, not to read policies. Wikimania 2005 (deleted and cancelled) because if everyone stays home they can spend that time writing articles rather than socializing. RfA because we have enough admins, and voting for candidates takes time away from article writing, plus there has to be another Wikipedia-administrator electing site out there. RfAr because the time spent disciplining users should be spent writing articles, and if they want to discipline users, they can go to another Wikipedia-user disciplining site. RfC because if we spend all our time writing articles, then we won't have time to waste commenting. Recent Changes because RC-patrol time could better be spent writing articles. How to donate money because by the time we've deleted everything above, we won't need donations anymore, because the project will be dead. -- Essjay · Talk July 6, 2005 05:09 (UTC)
• Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikipedia:Wikigames has been redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not like it's sucking up a lot of resources, nor is it in the way, nor is it in any regards detracting from the Wikipedia. It's not disruptive, etc. etc. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 13:52 (UTC)
• Delete. As per my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers, this should not be in the sandbox. Angela. July 7, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Delete. A) This is the Sandbox, by its very nature anything here should be ephemeral - it's wiped at regular intervals, this should IMO extend to subpages. B) This chess game thing shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway, it's in no way encyclopedia-related. Bryan 7 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Then by that logic, let's get rid of BJAODN and the Department of Fun, too! I'm sure it's not related to Wikipedia at all! -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

• Delete or at least move: there is no way anything in the sandbox is supposed to last through a cleaning cycle, and this includes any sub-pages. If the Department of Fun are so keen to keep it, they should justify moving it under their project and promise to police it to ensure it stays within sane limits. My preference would, however, be for it to move to Wikigames. --Phil | Talk July 7, 2005 07:33 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I love the idea of wikipedians playing chess together, I think that it makes more sense to do this at Wikicities or somewhere similar. I feel faintly hypocritical about this, having had such fun with European Toilet Roll Holder but I do see a significant difference between the relatively short-lived building of a nihilartikel and the running of a continuing suite of games. My fundamental problem with this is its location. Would the participants feel aggrieved were this cleared as part of routine sanbox cleaning? I imagine so, and thus conclude that it is not appropriate for the sandbox. I would also have less of an issue with it were it possible to watch just recent changes to the main article space. —Theo (Talk) 7 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with comment made by User:Angela. Seeaxid 7 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
• Keep. The games section does absolutely no harm to the site. Statements that, "they make the site run slower and use bandwith" are full of it. Yes, every page takes some bandwith, but Wikipedia has about one new page every minute or two. So if you are going to claim that the pages make the site slower etc., then you need to realize that in making that statement you are also basically saying "Oh, let's remove the option to start new pages because they slow the site down and take up bandwith." Open your eyes, the site is growing, but does anyone ever make a large complaint about the site slowing down. Seven pages have been created since I began typing this, but I find no difference in the site speed, even on dial-up. So stop fooling yourselves. The games do not harm the project in any way. They are there for the benefit of the users who choose to use them. If you don't want to use them then don't, that's fine with me, but don't ruin other people's good times just because you don't see how it benefits you. Maybe it benefits them and allows a break from the pain it sometimes is to contribute and edit Wikipedia. -Hoekenheef 7 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
• delete - agree with Angela. -- nyenyec ☎ 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
• Delete and take it to Wikigames. --Tabor 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

No that's not the point. There's no where else you can commit to community-building. "Other websites" do not have a en:wikipedia community. Let's delete BJAODN too, by that logic. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

• Yes, please continue the project, but Move out of the sandbox. That is definitely not the place for it; and most keep votes say nothing about the location of the pages. As for Wikicities' Wikigames... it sort of misses the idea, which as I understand it is to play games with other wiki editors without leaving the comfort of en:wp (watchlists, talk pages, and all). +sj + 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Delete, go elsewhere if you want to screw around. 217.43.8.74 8 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)

Comment. 217.43.8.74 only has 3 edits. Furthermore, it's not "going elsewhere to screw around", because it's to build relations with other editors, so "going elsewhere" wouldn't work. Building such relations indirectly contributes to a more cohesive, consistent encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

• Strong Keep its not different than the wikipedia quiz thing or other games. Why delete these its community building. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is an argument I just wrote up arguing for the survival of WikiChess. It responds to the letter Angela cited, which can be found at here. My letter can be found at User:Flcelloguy/Chess, where you can leave comments not related to the VfD.
• Keep Why delete these its community building. Zmehmed 20:50, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has expanded ever since its conception over three years ago, and we currently have hundreds of active members, each offering his/her contributions, building up the diversity and greatness in Wikipedia. With the growing usage of the site, though, tensions will inevitably amount. Tempers will flare, and edit wars will begin. Users with no other place to turn will vent their frustration on other Wikipedians.

While the above may be an "Armageddon" prediction, the truth is that Wikipedians need places to relax and unwind. WikiChess, currently located in the sandbox, is one of the multiple sites for WikiFun. Incidentally, Wikifun is an extremely popular game that has now drawn a plethora of attention, and multiple users are playing it as we speak. WikiChess serves a similar purpose to the many other Wikipedia pages which serve to entertain or challenge. BJAODN has kept hundreds of Wikipedians laughing for months; the WikiFun tournament has frustrated- and amused- users for a long time, and X-treme deletion has lasted through its own x-treme VfD. What distinguishes WikiChess from the other entertainment and amusement pages?

Indeed, WikiChess is no different from WikiFun or the other entertainment pages. It serves to keep Wikipedians involved, and is a great place at the end of a long day of RC patrolling to meet with fellow Wikipedian chess enthusiasts. In fact, chess has been scientifically proven to stimulate the mind- allowing better editing and writing! Seriously, though, WikiChess has done no harm- there have been no recorded incidents or complaints that it impedes with normal Wikipedian editing and Wikipedia operations.

As to WikiChess being in the sandbox, it can- and should- be moved to a Wikipedia: page of its own soon. It has attained an honored status similar to that of WikiFun, and is deserving of its own nameplace, just like the many other Wikipedia: pages which serve to keep us amused.

To respond to the concern that WikiChess will draw more users who will only play chess: the more users, the better! We currently have a dire situation where most people who create an account do not stay long-term. Are we to chase away potential editors, writers, and Wikipedians when they stumble onto our pages? Besides, there will be no influx of people who join Wikipedia solely for the chess- as argued in your letter above, there are much better gaming sites that offer free chess. People only interested in chess will ultimately end up in those sites.

Erik also makes an argument that once the games have developed, it will clutter up the RC patrolling. Will one move per game per day really make a huge difference? Do people not respond to the challenging questions at WikiFun, and do people not add more nonsense to BJAODN? The extremely small number of edits to be performed would hardly make an impact, and personally, when I am RC patrolling, do not mind these edits. Besides, it certainly does not require much effort to look at the edited page and determine that it is a chess game.

In addition, the above letter also argues that the page clutters the Wikipedia: namespace and also will serve as a reflection of Wikipedia. One additional page will not clutter the namespace, and one page (out of over 600,000 articles alone) will not change the reflection of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, was, and will be a free-content encyclopedia, albeit with policies, user pages, and other community-building pages.

Finally, I do share the concerns with Erik that there will be an abundance of new game pages. However, the matter at hand is the fate of WikiChess, and the other pages should not affect this vote. A new policy limiting the start of new pages, as proposed by Erik, should be a completely different debate irrelevant to this one.

Thus, I urge everyone to rook- oops, I mean keep- and save this noble WikiGame. Thank for taking the time out of your busy Wiki-Schedule to read this, and happy editing!

Regards,

Flcelloguy --Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 8 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• As per my comments on the other vfds, delete this until we come to some kind of concensus as to which particular games we could like to keep. A small number is ok, but we can't just keep adding them ad hoc. Enochlau 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons above. Eric119 20:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because its the only interesting thing to do on the Sandbox next to looking at your new signature. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _C 15:49, 12 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 Either keep or no consensus. Keep either way. Woohookitty 07:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Game_of_Go

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

• Strong keep. See the precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship. It's a reasonable community-building activity. "Free chess online" doesn't suit for one, the game of go isn't chess, and secondly, it would defeat the whole point of community building. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't be a killjoy. This isn't chess - at least get your facts straight. Wiki is fast, anyway. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 16:16:31 (UTC).
• Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
• Delete. This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
• Move & Projectfy at Wikipedia:Department of fun, unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• keep or move to wikicities but keep links to it wherever it goes. Not as encyclopedic as 6 degrees of separation but I don't see it being a big load on the servers. Just if you are going to play go here, make sure you use the preview button when editing articles, to make up for the 'extra' load? Pedant 2005 July 5 01:15 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sietse. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT a gameserver. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Keep - not a valid criterion for deletion. Whether or not fun and games belong on Wikipedia is a policy issue, not a VfD issue. A good argument was made on the mailing list, but the mailing list has no official status and that discussion was not brought up here. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
• Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikipedia:Wikigames has been redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
• Keep please. It's a fun game. -- BigMac 6 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
• Delete. This should not be in the sandbox. Angela. July 7, 2005 06:06 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. And if we keep this one, what would be the argument against offering every other sort of game here? carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• Strong keep. A submit every now and then isnt going to kill wikipedia.. especially with no more than 5 games going on at once. See also Natalinasmpf's post.
• Strgon keep per Natalinasmpf and every other wikipedian that voted keep. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

• Move & Projectfy as an entirley sepearte wikimedia project unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. --glassjar99 01:15, 11 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, but a move to Wikipedia:Hangman may be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Hangman

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free chess online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

• Strong keep. See the precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship, which was kept. It's a reasonable community-building activity. "Free chess online" doesn't suit for one, the activity in question isn't chess, and secondly, it would defeat the whole point of community building. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep and Move to Wikipedia:Hangman- The last three games have been quite fun and have worked rather well. I do offer to move the page out of the Sandbox. I don't know why it was put there in the first place. -Hoekenheef 4 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)
  • The games section does absolutely no harm to the site. Statements that, "they make the site run slower and use bandwith" are full of it. Yes, every page takes some bandwith, but Wikipedia has about one new page every minute or two. So if you are going to claim that the pages make the site slower etc., then you need to realize that in making that statement you are also basically saying "Oh, let's remove the option to start new pages because they slow the site down and take up bandwith." Open your eyes, the site is growing, but does anyone ever make a large complaint about the site slowing down. Seven pages have been created since I began typing this, but I find no difference in the site speed, even on dial-up. So stop fooling yourselves. The games do not harm the project in any way. They are there for the benefit of the users who choose to use them. If you don't want to use them then don't, that's fine with me, but don't ruin other people's good times just because you don't see how it benefits you. Maybe it benefits them and allows a break from the pain it sometimes is to contribute and edit Wikipedia. -Hoekenheef 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that most of the problem here is that this game is located in the sandbox. Now as the current runner of the I geuss it is my responsiblity to defend it as best as possible. I don't know why the page was put in the sandbox. That is a question for Ashley Y. I am also not trying to shove off responsiblity. Now I have offered to move the page out of the sandbox, but it seems as if you people don't even read through these disscussions before voting. I strongly urge you to do that. -Hoekenheef 8 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
• This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:19 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
• Move & Projectfy at Wikipedia:Department of fun, unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT a gameserver. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Keep - not a valid criterion for deletion. Whether or not fun and games belong on Wikipedia is a policy issue, not a VfD issue. A good argument was made on the mailing list, but the mailing list has no official status and that discussion was not brought up here. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
• K _ _ _. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Move or delete. Sandbox should only hold the sandbox. "Test projects" should be in userspace, their own Wikipedia: page or subpage of a parent project. IMHO. zoney ♣ talk 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)
• Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikipedia:Wikigames has been redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. And if we keep this one, what would be the argument against offering every other sort of game here? carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

No, because there aren't any other sites for recreational activities modeled for the en: Wikipedia community, and where the editors can thus gather to commune. -- Natalinasmpf 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep why can't we have some fun isn't that what the wikifun is for. Enough said. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keepwiki fun? what are you, a stress enforcer? Its the sandbox for god sakes, why dont you ban people from using the sandbox and then they can vandalize some other pages.--Zxcvbnm 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
• X-Treme (Extremely) strong keep. Entertaining, community building. Shows how the Wiki can be used for other ways besides being an encyclopedia. -ShadowMan1od 9 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• STRONGEST KEEP EVAR!!11. If this is deleted, I will seriously leave Wikipedia in disgust for it should not be taken so seriously. Hangman is not interfering with bandwidth or server space any more than a giant userpage, and obviously we're not going to put a zillion games on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a game server. We just want a place to hang out and have fun. Internets = fun. Internets =/= serious business. Purplefeltangel 9 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
• Perhaps we need to decide that we want a maximum of x games on Wikipedia, and then we can all vote on which games we will keep. But we can't keep on adding them; I agree with Raul, and I follow Eloquence's arguments on the mailing list. Until then, delete. Enochlau 15:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps only one game at a time, where we vote on who runs the next game. --Quadraxis
• Keep but move. I agree with having a few games under their own project. They may not be encyclopedic but they do contribute to the goal of Wikipedia. Also, this should be discussed elsewhere before condemning games or the dept. of fun in general. --NormalAsylum ^(talk) 03:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, the sandbox is for editing tests; this provides a way to test formatting, etc. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 21:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 no consensus. The votes are: 10 to delete (including the nominator); 8 to keep; 2 to move; and 1 to merge. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers

This is the sandbox, a place to test your edits when new to wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a game place. Games have no place here, and with the speed this site has been lately, we don't need useless games taking more bandwidth. Plenty of free checkers online. Elfguy 4 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

• Strong keep. See the precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship, which was kept. It's a reasonable community-building activity. "Free chess online" doesn't suit for one, the activity in question isn't chess, and secondly, it would defeat the whole point of community building. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Delete, agree that it's not a worthwhile use of resources here jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Keep- This is a vital sub-department of the Department of Fun! :-) Seriously, all of these are harmless, wiki-stress relieving, community-building activities. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
• This dillitues the goals of the project - Wikipedia is not a platform for gaming. Jimbo has offered to put them on Wikicities. Move them and delete. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
• Comment. Voters should also be aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers and in particular, the list message by User:Eloquence linked to by User:Angela which posits that all wikigames should be Wikipedia namespace and not the sandbox, where, he believes, games get a wrongful immunity against VfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia gets too serious sometimes. There needs to be a place to have fun. — Bcat (talk | email) 4 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
• Delete. This is getting a slippery slope. I can see that it's fun and, of course, I don't object to a few people playing a game in their userspace or in the sandbox, but we shouldn't get to a point were the games interfere with the encyclopedia building (e.g. by making the site slower, complicating RC patrol because of higher volume of changes). If we are going to keep these games, these VfDs will become a precedent and it will become more difficult to limit the amount of "fun" pages that do not help the encyclopedia-building-aspect of Wikipedia. Games should be hosted elsewhere. Sietse 4 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
• Keep, community-building enhances encyclopedia-building. Kappa 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
• Merge to Wikipedia:Checkers. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• Delete per →Raul654. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
• Move & Projectfy at Wikipedia:Department of fun, unless this creates a significant draw of Wikipedia resources. We are here for fun - one way or another - and this helps integrate the community just as real life meetings, noticeboards, mailing lists, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Draughts. ;) Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Keep NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. We have enough trouble proving to people that this is a serious project without all this crap. Danny 5 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT a gameserver. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Comment. By your logic, let's delete BJAODN and the department of fun, then? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Keep - not a valid criterion for deletion. Whether or not fun and games belong on Wikipedia is a policy issue, not a VfD issue. A good argument was made on the mailing list, but the mailing list has no official status and that discussion was not brought up here. Guettarda 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
• Delete -- The sandbox isn't an appropriate place for games of this type. All content in the sandbox should be routinely cleared and deleted, including subfolders, regardless of the content. The sandbox by nature is a temporary testing space for new users to experiment and not a resource for creating wikigames or sub-communities. I also note Wikipedia:Wikigames has been redirected to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I'm not against Wikigames as such, but I am against hiding them within subfolders of the Wikipedia sandbox. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
• Delete. As per my vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Checkers, this should not be in the sandbox. Angela. July 7, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonencyclopedic. Wiki editors all know how to find recreational activities elsewhere on the Internet. And if we keep this one, what would be the argument against offering every other sort of game here? carmeld1 8 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is a community. Now, while I don't travel to the checkes or hang etc I do go the chess. It is a nice way to relax after dealing with vandals, and stupid debates over a sentence in the entire article. That said, this is just a way to relax and its a SANDBOX. Perhaps we shouldn't have any SANDBOX then. :) There is the trivia game and other things as well. If anything this helps bring interest to wikipedia. Falphin 8 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes it's fun, and it builds community, but we need to draw the line somewhere, and after having read Eloquence's posting on the mailing list, it seems to me to be the appropriate action here. Enochlau 15:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Good for testing formatting, etc. as part of the sandbox. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 21:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pinar Dilseker

A short stub in Turkish. A web search indicates that it might be about a musician. The article has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks without being translated. So I'm listing it here in order to decide what we're going to do with it. Sietse 4 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

• Delete Groeck 4 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
• Delete, single sentence stubs. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
• Delete. What's with that email address? --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
• Delete; useless. Jaxl 4 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
• Delete as per {{notenglish}} policy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Delete Econrad 5 July 2005 01:51 (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, note that HOUSD will be kept due to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/HOUSD ending with a no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ali Graham

tagged as speedy, appears to be vanity. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:42 (UTC). Also consider HOUSD. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:43 (UTC) oh and The Genghis Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

• Delete Groeck 4 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Delete both Ali Graham and HOUSD (two for the price of one, what a deal!) RoySmith 4 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and fancruft, while not criteria for deletion, drag its value down lower. Thus coupled with a lack of NPOV and verifiable material, and full of itself and advertising in every way, makes it a strong deletion candidate. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
• Delete both. Ali Graham may be a speedy, as it's been replaced with "Sorry, obviously didnt read the rules on the vanity thing. I'm fine with this going. Just saw that Jeph Jaques did it", which could be considered a request by the author to delete, although the anonymous IPs aren't identical. No Alexa data for HOUSD. — Gwalla | Talk 02:41, 12 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. Rossami (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hungry Dreamer's Theory

Delete non-notable neologism lacking proper citation. The reference included in the article[9] doesn't seem to refer to the phenomena cited in the article and a google for the term turns up no hits[10]. Axon 4 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

• Delete. Crap NL, NN. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research, unverifiable --IByte 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Note: "What links here" clearly shows that there are at least two notable (and very dead) James Lindsays. Nothing in this article would be at all helpful to the creation of those articles. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

James Lindsay

Vanity Groeck 4 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

• Delete: vanity, claims of notability unverifiable. Sietse 4 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
• Delete: Bloody teenagers. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
• Delete: Yet Another Vanity Page (or move to BJAODN if someone finds this sufficiently funny; I know I don't) --IByte 4 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
• Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

HOUSD

Seems to be at best, non-notable fancruft and vanity. While not criteria by deletion by themselves, the element of advertising, plus the lack of NPOV, and the non-verifiable material condemns it all the more. Delete. Consider also The Genghis and Ali Graham. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

• Comment: Other webcomics have articles (consider Penny Arcade), including some that aren't within the "Top10" of webcomics, like Angst Technology. Is this one non-notable? I don't know, it's on rank 175 on "The Webcomic List", FWIW (http://www.thewebcomiclist.com/profile.php?order=ranking). --Moritz 4 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
• Keep per webcomiclist ranking. Kappa 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
• Keep: There are already several decent articles on web comics in Wikipedia, e.g. User Friendly, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance etc. I also don't see an NPOV problem here. --IByte 4 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
• Keep: mildly notable. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Delete borderline notable comic cruft. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:29 (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.  Grue  19:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Genghis

Seems to be at best, non-notable fancruft and vanity. While not criteria by deletion by themselves, the element of advertising, plus the lack of NPOV, and the non-verifiable material condemns it all the more. Delete. Consider also HOUSD and Ali Graham. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, unlike HOUSD. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
• Delete. No Alexa rank, NN. Pity, they appear to have fine taste in music. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
• Delete. It's like making a wikipedia entry for a blog. Plus, the actual site was started in March, and hasn't been updated since May --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
• Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:30 (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.  Grue  19:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gkfa

Article about website- could be ad, vanity, or non-notability. As always, I could be wrong. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 4 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertisement. If people want to find this site, may I suggest they use Google instead of Wikipedia. --IByte 4 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
• Delete, but do it in a hip an stylish way. RoySmith 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely an ad. "We deal with topics..." They didn't even include a direct link to their site. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:28 (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.  Grue  20:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

James Gallagher

Vanity. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: author's vanity page --IByte 4 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
• Delete for being Scottish jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Jaxl 4 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• I don't know- he's a "top bloke" and he has the same nickname as "Jimbo" Wales! Plus he hates Busted! Delete. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
• Delete and point and laugh at the author to express derision at this cringeworthy vanity article. His hatred of Busted is the only redeeming feature here. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity. David | Talk 13:01, 10 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 ambiguous.

The majority decision is clearly to delete this as a mere dicdef. However, there is merit to Proto's suggestion to make this a redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. This would be a logical shortcut that parallels such shortcuts as [[be bold]] and [[assume good faith]]. Finding nothing objectionable in the history that requires deletion from Wikipedia, I am going to make it into a redirect as suggested. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

undelete

For an old notice about administrators following links in deleted articles, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Undelete/2004 November 14.

User:Duncharris nominated this article for deletion on 2005-07-04, but since a discussion page already existed omitted one of the three steps. I've moved the prior page out of the way and added the required header. This is not a vote. Uncle G 4 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

• Delete: An entry containing pretty much the same already exists in [Wiktionary]. --IByte 4 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps you'd like to clarify what, exactly, this is, if not a vote? --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
  • Completing an unfinished nomination, according to the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 19:23 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 4 19:23 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe after this is deleted someone will list this on Votes for Undeletion to suit their twisted waste-of-Wikipedia-resources idea of fun. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:47 (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.  Grue  20:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Simon R Jones

Delete. Non-notable. There are many famous people named Simon Jones, but not one, according to the article itself. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established, but it may be more than just vanity. I would be willing to consider it if the article did a little more to convince me that Mr. Jones is worth the entry, but as it stands, no. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
• Keep Why not make it a stub instead? OK, I never heard of the guy, but that doesn't mean anything. Maybe in the future, he will do something more noteworthy. I say keep it, but give it a biography stub. Maybe he can bribe an intern to update it ;-) --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
• Delete, established precedent is that you need to be notable now, not in the future. If not, you can come back and write an article when you are. If this was not the case, we'd have articles for every living and dead human being, just in case. With "Simon R Jones" "Media Lab" giving only 3 Google hits, this guy is not more notable than your average professor, so fails the professor test. -Splash July 4, 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:11 (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, 11k, 1d(nominator), 1 anon, 1 repeat discounted and Oirvin too since ~20 edits at that point. Already listed for expansion. -Splash 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Deepcut Barracks

The page is biased and does not present both side of the story, it has no relevance. (ColeR 04/07/05 @ 1832)

• Keep. If the article is indeed biased, it should be improved, rather than deleted. --MarkSweep 4 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
• Keep. Article should be added to. BBC has info on it as do quite a few other sources. Oirvine 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not an appropriate mechanism for dealing with POV issues. Although there may be a problem with the article, this is an inappropriate use of the VfD process. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs cleanup and expansion, but there's no reason not to have an article about Deepcut Barracks. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
• Keep I was bold and added the expand tag, and listed on pages for expansion so keep assuming that this page will be expanded. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep of course. And needs expanding. It's an army barracks in the UK that has been under scrutiny for some time due to a number of bullying cases and suicides which may or may not have been a result of the aforementioned bullying. Jez 4 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable army barracks.Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• It is not fact was is written about it and it brings the Army's reputation in to question. Delete. Anonymous comment by 62.171.198.37 (talk · contribs)
• Delete If it is nonbias why does it only mention the deaths and not actually tell you that its the HQ for the Royal Logisitcs???? Delete non notbale and offensive to British Army. Anonymous comment by 62.171.198.6 (talk · contribs)
• Keep as is. Evercat 5 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
• Delete Not nearly enough info to justifys this pages existence, move to British Army if nessacary. This article cannot be kept. Perhaps the Army should know about this, they may have something to say about this page, perhaps liable?

  Anonymous comment by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs), the same user who nominated it here.

  Perhaps someone should contact the Army about this page?

  Anonymous comment by 80.3.32.9 (talk · contribs)

• Keep, NPOV-ify. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added from information from the BBC and links to the BBC News and Scotsman features on this issue. The article is credible, and there is no reason to remove it. Ground Zero 6 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)
• Keep Completely inappropriate nomination. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
• Keep nuthing wrong.. Needs expanding - put appropriate needs work tag on it -max rspct 7 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
• Keep The barracks in question is notable because soldiers continue to die there. Arguably the title is misleading since in essence this is not a history item about the barracks but about particular notable events which have happened there.Sandpiper 16:54, 10 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 ambiguous.

I count 1 "keep as is", 2 "redirect" and 5 "delete" (including the anon nominator). In this case, I find no evidence that the anon is a sockpuppet and will allow the vote.

The concensus is clear that this article should not remain as an independent article. Looking at the article myself, I see an unexpandable single sentence at a title which is unlikely to be used. I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Moni Mule Pati and Pem Dorjee Sherpa

Note: Relisting this, as the previous nomination seems to have been incomplete. Original nomination follows.--MarkSweep 4 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

No relevance --213.7.22.2 10:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it is something for a daily newspaper AN 15:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This fact is interesting enough for an encyclopedia. --Wittkowsky 19:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete good for a newspaper but not for WP ...Sicherlich ^talk 06:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pemba Dorjie, which already includes the very brief contents of this article. --MarkSweep 4 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Now, if they had consummated the marriage on top of the mountain, that would be worthy of an encyclopedia article :-) --RoySmith 4 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
• Redirect Seems more informative there. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:42 (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. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Free hugs

Non-notable with some original research. Note that no pages link here. GabrielF 4 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
• Wonderful idea. Somedays, I really could use a hug. This is not one of those days. Delete RoySmith 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm thinking that this is some sort of youth-cultural thing lost on me. /old fart --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
• Delete. The Mata Amritanandamayi article is encyclopedic. This isn't. Dystopos 5 July 2005 19:56 (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, but move to Human Cannonball (album). Rather than make this title a disambig, I think the better practice is to redirect it to Human cannonball, and drop a reference to the album above that article. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Human Cannonball

Delete as unencyclopaedic--File Éireann 4 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

• Keep. Why? There are plenty of album articles in Wikipedia. Of course, if it is too non-notable, it deserves deletion. 702 Google hits.[11]--Jyril July 4, 2005 19:26 (UTC)
• Keep; this can be improved. AMG has a listing of this album: [12] Jaxl 4 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
  Comment: I fixed it up; I'll withdraw my vote and see if it's still an acceptable article to the majority. Jaxl 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
  Comment (in response to JamesMLane's comment); if this article is kept, I'll vote to move it to Human Cannonball (album). Jaxl 5 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
• Delete — from what I read, the sales of this album tanked and the band folded afterward. The album name is already listed on the band's page and there's nothing else of interest here. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
• Keep, album by notable band. Kappa 4 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Jaxl. This is now a good article. Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
• Delete as per RJH. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
• Comment. No vote on keep/delete, but it lends itself to confusion with the article on the circus act Human cannonball. If the album article is kept, it should be renamed Human Cannonball (album). If it's deleted, then this title should become a redirect to the circus act article. Meanwhile, I've added a reference on each to the other. JamesMLane 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
• Keep but disambig, I believe one of the New Mutants goes by that name, in the Marvel Comics universe. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:11 (UTC)
  • I'm glad I'm not the only one who's wasted a lot of time on comic books, although this character came along after I'd stopped reading them. It seems that his "official" name was simply Cannonball. We already have an article on him at Cannonball (comics). JamesMLane 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
• Doesn't anyone vote Merge anymore? This can safely go in as additional nineteen lines in the existing School of Fish article. NeverTheSameNameTwice 8 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)

• Comment: If this were merged into School of Fish, then it would also call for merging in their other album (School of Fish (album)) into the School of Fish article. If one was to merge that one into School of Fish as well, then that would make a really confusing article with two infoboxes. The albums should be kept seperate from the main article. I'm still in favor of moving to Human Cannonball (album). Jaxl 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
• Comment: Problems with formatting are not a reason to seperate separate an article. Fourty or so extra lines can easily fit in the 'base' School Of Fish. Unless there is something particulary noteworthy about these album other than their existance they do not merit their own articles. OkI'llUseTheSameNameJustThisOnce 9 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe so, but I've definitely seen album articles with less information. I didn't author the article, and it doesn't really matter to me if it is deleted or merged into School of Fish, but I wouldn't mind it being moved as I said above. If someone can figure out how to deal with the infoboxes already present (or maybe even just delete them), then go ahead and merge the articles. Jaxl 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

• Move to Human Cannonball (album), then redirect to human cannonball. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 02:04 (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. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oxford Union Society Hilary 2005 Elections

• Speedy It isn't really appropriate to publish details of Union elections on the web, especially as this is explicitly banned by the Union's rules. This page really shouldn't have been created, and the information isn't supposed to be in the public domain. I created this article in good faith, but have since been informed that I wasn't allowed to put this information on the web. Getting rid of it would avoid a lot of major hassle and possible legal problems, and get me off the hook. Please help! 62.190.239.12 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Wright, do not delete my comments or you will be banned. Bajocbi 4 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Pfft - it's not that bad. Plus, it's quite funny.

I can't believe the amendment to the drugs entry was deleted, removing reference to the lib dems! shame!

• Delete, I think it's the decent thing to do :D jamesgibbon 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN just to make this guy's life miserable. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
• KEEP This is very relevant information, Oxford Union Presidency is highly sought after and this tribunal made national newspapers; earlier tribunals made CNN, Fox News, Hindustan Times etc. Sapana Agrawal is already a minor celebrity. Bajocbi 4 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

  User's third edit. func(talk) 4 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

• Delete This is way too detailed. DJ Clayworth 4 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• No, the Union churns out 3 elections and three presidents every year, and none of them have their own articles. This information can;t be described as relevant to anything, and moreover, it shouldn't be allowed on this site in the first place. Student politics doesn't really belong on this page, and I should have realised that before I posted - I'm trying my best to make amends now.
  • Anonymous comments do not count in the vote, Jonathan Wright. Bajocbi 4 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
• Delete. In truth, unencyclopedic. The Oxford Union Society is certainly worthy of inclusion, as might be an article on their elections in general, but to suggest that we would have an article on this particular year's election, and by extension, a whole article on every election they have ever had and will ever have, is silly. There are tens of thousands of elections that go on at universities; the bar should be pretty high for showing that any one of them is deserving of its own article. func(talk) 4 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
• Delete, per func. Ambi 4 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
• Delete, both because not at all notable, and because the only editor of the article desires it. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 20:27 (UTC)
• Delete - University election details are unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Delete External links from Oxford Union Society cover the votes and the tribunal --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Speedy delete articles requested by the only contributor to it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 4 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
• Delete for goodness' sake, and User:Bajocbi is exhibiting strange behavior, seems to know who the first IP contributor is and to be attempting an attack on him - and the user did not exist before today, and made three edits before editing this page, and has not signed all of his comments on this page (which has an... unusual history for a VfD page) and did not assume good faith with respect to 62.190.239.12 removal of his his comment earlier. But that's beside the point - deletion requested by primary contributor. Sirmob 4 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
• Speedied per request of author. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 22:47 (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, unanimously with discounted malicious anon nomination.-Splash

Donggala

nonsense, where is this alleged place 203.98.57.97 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but it is about an existing place in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. If you think that some of the information in the article is incorrect, then please fix it or say what's wrong with it on its talkpage. Thanks, Sietse 4 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work, but the town exists. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• Keep. The information looks accurate - google it Veledan 4 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
• Keep; 6,930 hits on google: [13] Jaxl 4 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
• Comment: If you don't know where Sulawesi is, you might try looking it up in some kind of online encyclopedia. Kappa 4 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Keep - this user (203.98.57.97) already started a bunch of completely frivolous VFDs yesterday and looks like he/she is at it again today. Kaibabsquirrel 5 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
• Keep and delist. Invalid VfD nomination. —RaD Man (talk) 5 July 2005 15:52 (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, 4k, 1d, nominator discounted. -Splash 01:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Drivecam

nonsense, its a camera in a car, possibly a trade name and advert 203.98.57.97 4 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

• Keep. This appears to be a notable piece of technology. - Thatdog 4 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
• Keep - it very much appears to exist, though it clearly needs a lot of rewriting Sirmob 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Keep - this user (203.98.57.97) already started a bunch of completely frivolous VFDs yesterday and looks like he/she is at it again today. Kaibabsquirrel 5 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate, interesting topic. carmeld1 8 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While there is no denying that ThisGuy is a knob, I am unconvinced that this particular article has merit. How widely used used does a brand-name product need to be before we keep it? DeleteThemAllAndLetRadiantSortThemOut 8 July 2005 09:20 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreated deleted content. FCYTravis 4 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Pink_Poogle_Toy

This article has been deleted previously ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PinkPT ). Website/Forum advertising, doesn't need its own page. Melesse 4 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously. -Splash 01:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Python Imaging Library

Merge into the Packages for Python section of Python programming language IByte 4 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

• Keep - other packages for python have their own page (mod python, Numerical Python, etc) and the whole article was just two hours old. Sirmob 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is now over a day old and it still consists of only one sentence and an external link. If it's not substantially expanded during the VfD lag time, I see no reason not to merge it. --IByte 5 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Keep. Worthwhile. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)
• Keep (change of vote): As the article has been expanded, I now think the page is useful. --IByte 6 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mowbray's

I can't make sense of this entry. Google doesn't enlighten the meaning either.

lots of issues | leave me a message 4 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

• Delete, probably a mild attack on something. Kappa 4 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Barring more context, comprehension of this article would take a miracle. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
• Delete - yeesh. --Moritz 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
• Delete - Sounds like it should be on SourceryForge --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 4 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
• Delete. History shows that it used to be an article about a section of Upper Canada College a very notable and historic private school. However, even before being vandalised, it was not much more than vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
• Delete promo. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
• Delete as per DoubleBlue's reasoning. —Tokek 5 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Same should go for Jackson's, Martland's, Orr's, and Scadding's but I'm a little too new to nominate them. Ektar 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
  • I've redirected Martland's and Orr's to UCC but I think Jackson's and Scadding's are reasonable stubs. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 15:04 (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 backlight. CDC (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Backlit

DicDef. Merge to Backlight if anything. Nifboy 4 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it has anything that is worth contributing to Backlight, so I would say Redirect to Backlight. Sirmob 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
• Redirect to backlight. Jaxl 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
• Redirect to backlight. Sietse 5 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
• Redirect to backlight. Tokek 5 July 2005 04:56 (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. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Severiano Juncal

not notable/vanity--Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Delete: With its NN childhood tales, it is obviously a vanity page. --IByte 4 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Agoratherapy

Not notable enough/original research -- BMIComp (talk) 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

• No hits on Google. Neologism, dicdef, Delete. Sirmob 4 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
• Delete: nn. Did you mean: Amoratherapy? :P --Moritz 4 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
• Delete. dicdef, neologism. —Tokek 5 July 2005 04:54 (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. The vote to keep an article on the concept of the expression of anti-polish sentiments is clear. For the record, I count:

16 straight "keep" votes (discounting an anon vote and several voters with few Wikipedia edits)

4 "keep or rename"

5 "keep and rename"

4 "rename"

1 "Keep and split" (which a number of voters agreed was a good option)

2 "delete" (including the nominator)

1 "merge"

What really appears to be at issue in this VfD is the appropriate name for this article. That is a matter to be settled on the article's talk page. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism

This article is an admitted neologism, as well as an apparent attempt to incorporate Nazi attrocities against Poles, the Prussian (later, German), Austro-Hungarian and Russian (later, Soviet) occupation of Poland, ethnocentric denigration of Poles, and perhaps a few other gripes, together into a single article. What's here can mostly be incorporated into Polish September Campaign, Holocaust, History of Poland, and Ethnic slurs. Even after the cleanup by Jayjg, it remains absurdly POV. The rest of it needs to go, as it's little more than uncited WP:NOR and a magnet for POV-pushers. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Anglophobia, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Semitist, Anti-French sentiment in the United States etc., could be also incorporated into Holocaust, History of XXX, and Ethnic slurs, etc.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename. The factual information in the article is sourced (see references, external links - how can you call 12 written and 8 online references NOR??), so the phenomenon exists and is of encyclopedic value. True, the title is a neologism, but it was not invented on Wiki - while it is rarely used (517 hits on Google), half of them (first page) are non-Wiki. Name change might be useful, but as you can see on Talk:Anti-Polonism, the name change was often discussed, but no consensus was reached. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
  • Regarding the references, it appears many of them are not about the concept as described in the article, but rather are historical works describing various events which this article is classifying as "anti-Polonism". That's quite another thing; on Wikipedia it's called original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
    • Some, perhaps. All, surely not. Although if you can prove that none of those do indeed refer to what is defined as Anti-Polonism in the article, I will change my vote to delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
• Rename. I see no good reason to have a rarely used neologism as the title of this article. In Talk:Anti-Polonism various other naming possibilities were discussed. What would be wrong with a more intelligible title like Prejudice against Poles or something to that effect? I personally do not like the term Anti-Polonism, since in Poland it has often been pushed by at least some right wing Polish nationalists, for their own reasons too complex to discuss here (in a nutshell, to set up an equivalency with the phenomenon of Antisemitism). Balcer 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
  • So we should also rename Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-French, Anti-German etc, articles.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Anti-Polonism is an obvious neologism; even the article itself admits it. I don't think you can make the same claim for the other examples you have given. Anti-Semitism gets millions of Google hits, anti-Americanism hundreds of thousands, anti-Catholicism tens of thousands, even anti-Arabism gets over three thousands hits. As for anti-French and anti-German, they're not neologisms at all, but descriptors. Jayjg ^(talk) 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
    • Its used in English history books---Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Which books? HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• • • And where should we draw the line in Google test? 100 hits? 500 hits? 1000 hits? 3000? 100,000? I am not a great fan of Anti-Polonism, but as Witkacy points out, it 'fits the series'. As for the title being neologism, I agree it is true, but that is no reason to delete it, as 1) it is used in at least few hundred non-Wiki sites, 2) would encourage the deletion of most articles in the Category:Neologisms. Anyway, this discussion is already moving towards Wikipedia:Requested moves, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 4 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
      • Tomers "problem" was not with the name, but with the article at all.--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)
      • No no no. Category:Neologisms doesn't consist of neologisms made up within WP, it lists a number of popular words of contemporary origin (e.g. weblog). There is no clear line to draw with a Google test, since it's just a very rough guideline. But when there's orders of magnitude in between, the result is fairly clear... --Moritz 4 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
• Keep Space Cadet 4 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
• Keep V1^t 4 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
• Rename per Balcer, who makes a good point about the use of the term by some right-wing groups, and refactor so it does not put Nazi genocide together with "Polish jokes"--Pharos 4 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  • So i guess Lukas, Richard C is a Polish nationalist, since he use this term in his books... :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • And the Canadian Foundation of Polish-Jewish Heritage a right-wing organisation [14] :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

The term is used in an article written by a Warsaw University professor. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• • ...and the Center for Dialogue and Prayer in Auschwitz [15] etc....--Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Again a Polish source. HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• • • It doesn't work that way. Even if you can find non-right-wing sources that use the term, it might still be associated with the right-wing. (I have no idea whether it is, in this case.) Furthermore, such associations change over time, it might be a perfectly neutral word one year only to become very partisan the next. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
    • I never implied that the term anti-polonism was only used by right-wing nationalists. Nevertheless, in Poland some right-wing nationalists (and sometimes antisemites) do use it frequently in their writings. To pick a random example, see this link.
    • And Anti-Semitism is used by Jewish right-wing nationalists, and? And the term Nazi is used by German Neo-Nazis, and? BTW the term anti-polonism is used by (among others) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland - Nobody cares about Anti-Arabism, Anti-Americanism or Anti-Slavism articles etc - is this voting the next demonstration of Anti-Polish sentiment amongst Wiki-Users? ... :)--Witkacy 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
• Keep: I can see where Tomer is coming from, and I'm tempted to vote delete if it solved anything. But chances are, the issue would just pop up again until people stop being emotional about it. Renaming still might be a good idea. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to: Delete: Certain arguments (e.g. by HKT, Thorsten1) and a lack of good arguments by the other side have changed my mind in so far as this was even necessary. --Moritz 09:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Tomer. Firstly, the word is a neologism. Secondly, most of the examples given in the article are wars! Rightly or wrongly, that is not the normal definition of "anti-whatever" prejudice. As an American, I would never suggest that the War of 1812 or World War I were examples of "anti-American" prejudice, even though both wars featured opponents who intended to kill Americans. That's just not how you normally define it. This article would have a much stronger case IMO if it concentrated on prejudice against Polish emigrants who travelled elsewhere. But it doesn't seem to have that, dealing almost entirely with wartime attacks against Poland. The Nazi activities of course went well beyond the normal boundaries of warfare, and so I do suggest merging them for that reason. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 00:09 (UTC)

I wouldn’t call the wars anti-American prejudice either, since they were wars, not planned extermination of people (civil men, women and children) of particular ethnic groups. The Nazi kind of occupation was not normal (as you noticed) nor it was similar to the same in other countries. Also, it’s not about the Nazis only. The article refers mostly to war times, because there were mostly wars in Poland. Still, there is a difference between occupation and persecution, though both may happen simultaneously. If you can develop the issue of prejudice against Polish emigrants, please, do. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

• Keep Small number of google hits doesn’t indicate that the problem does not exist only that few people are interested in it or notice it at all. I wouldn’t worry about the right-wing usages of the word. We should not reject a word only because a right-wing party chose to use it. I’ve just read some old talks and I think it’s high time to focus on the article’s body, which definitely needs extension, instead of it’s title. --SylwiaS 5 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is already a treasure-trove of not-widely-used phrases, and it is not paper. --Jpbrenna 5 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename to avoid neologism. HollyAm 5 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
• Keep. It's similar to Anti-Americanism, Anti-Arabism etc. --Akumiszcza 5 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
• Keep. BTW, I wonder if Anti-Semitism or Anglophobia are also listed for deletion so frequently... Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:41 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to something that's not a neologism. I would propose Anti-Polish, which would be in line with Anti-German etc. Karol July 5, 2005 06:35 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper --Azalero 5 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
• Keep or rename Radomil talk 5 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename. See no valid reason to delete (just because someone does not like it). And then Wiki is not paper. --wojsyl (talk) 5 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
• Rename and/or Redirect as per Tomer. IZAK 5 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be neologogism (in English) but it does try to describe phenomenon which I fuond many times in the web, usenet and whenever: absurd conclusion, that if I am Pole, than I surely am... (insert some accusation here). Szopen
• Comment: The implicit assumption shown by many that putting this up for VfD and showing anything but a total devotion to a Keep vote is itself an example of so-called "Anti-Polonism" is, frankly, extremely offensive. --Moritz 5 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many mentions of "pl:antypolonizm" in newspapers, there are even books. The reason for little usage of this word in English is that only few of them are translated and antipolonism itself is not widely discussed in media: but Wikipedia already contains articles about more exotic words and subjects and nobody complains. Jayjg convinced me that we should Reduce its contnent excluding wars agains Poland and Expand it to contain polish jokes and other examples of prejudice.

A.J. 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Ejdzej (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. A.J.) has 20 edits on enwiki (1268 on plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there any official policy that prohibits to edit more than one wiki ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm merely citing a precedent (about the validity of votes) for which there seems to be consensus. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Rename — Historically Poland was in the same boat as Belgium — being caught in the middle between more powerful nations. So this was as much to do with the strategic situation as anything having to do with some type of prejudice. — RJH 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Anti-Polish policies (Russification/Germanisation) of the Imperial Russia and Germany before 1918, as well as anti-Catholic/anti-Polish sentiments in the United States in XX century should be added. Negative stereotyping in portraying Polish characters in the movies and TV in the US after 1945 is another area for article's expansion. --Ttyre 5 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Keep and expand (as Ttyre). If it is really neologism - add redirect from Anti-Polonism to better English term (Anti-Polish? I do not know) --Julo 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
• Keep or rename KrzyP 5 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

krzyp (talk · contribs) has 6 edits, all to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep & rename. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:14 (UTC)
• Keep & keep name, I don't think Prejudice against Poles fits the article. Prejudices don't kill, generally. --Mononoke 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
• Keep and split I believe that this should be splitted to separate articles: Prejudices about Poles (i.e. Polish jokes and the like); Myths about Poles and Poland; Organised persecution of Poles (Nazi atrocities, Germanizations, school strikes); and even article about Oversensitivness of Poles (As some believe that Poles are oversensitive about their country). Anti-polonism article should mention the word, and list of topics as described above Przepla 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
  • Now that is a good idea. --Moritz 6 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
  • Fine with me, provided that the article on Anti-Polonism remains as the central article of the series. Also, a navbox could be a good idea. Halibutt July 6, 2005 12:55 (UTC)
    • Yes. We need a central article - although whether it is AP or some better name, that I am not sure about. But I like the section versions Przepla suggested. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 6 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
    • Sounds good, though we have to be very careful about the central article and any navboxes. I shudder at seeing Polish jokes and Nazi atrocities discussed side by side and placed in the same category, even by implication. This would vastly overrate the importance of the first and at the same time trivialize the second. Similarly, to me assigning You forgot Poland and Katyn Massacre to same Category:Anti-Polonism is ridiculous and sad.Balcer 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
• Comment. I find many of the comments defending this article disturbing in that they fail to address the concerns of the nominator, or justify keeping the article for reasons which have nothing to do with policy. A primary complaint is that the term is an admitted rarely-used neologism; responses along the lines of "Jews get to have anti-Semitism, so we should get to have anti-Polonism" do not address this issue, and, in fact, reek of "victimhood" competition, which has nothing to do with whether or not this article should remain, or should have this name. Second, the comments fail to address the issue that the article appears to consist entirely of original research; rather than quoting expert sources discussing the issue of "anti-Polonism", the authors instead have merely listed the things they believe are "anti-Polonism". Third, the article authors seem to have decided that any war against Poland is an example of "anti-Polonism", which is a fairly absurd idea, as is easy to see if one were to extend this concept to all wars between countries. Finally, as User:Balcer points out, the article conflates the relatively trivial (anti-Polish jokes) with the horrific (mass-murder), thus (by implication) trivializing the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
  • All what you say amounts to the necessity to rename and cleanup the aticle. The topic itself is valid. While "anti-polonism" may be a neologism, the word "Anti-Polish" is not. So the article may perfectly well be moved into the History of anti-Polish attitude or something. And there is nothing inherently wrong in conflating jokes with mass murder: both are poured from the same good old barrel of xenophobia. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
  • Keep & rename. I am suggesting to use the term "attitude", because it covers all: sentiments, prejudice, and actions. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
• Keep-the antipolonism term is used in scientific work.Including non-Polish authors.There are several links to works which use the term.
  

Unsigned edit by User:82.139.13.231 - Noted by It'sMe 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

• Keep and make redirection -PioM _EN DE PL 8 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Piom (talk · contribs) has 3 edits to enwiki (4659 to plwiki). To quote User:Ttyre: "Votes of the users from other Wikipedias were not counted during the Talk:Gdansk/Vote." HKT 02:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Let me state my nationality up front, I don't have one. This discussion could due with a bit more of "I'm Polish, and I think XXX" and "Well, I'm a Nazi and I think YY" so we know where everyone is coming from.

There are basicly two points being debated here:

• Is this a new word for an existing thing? (I.e. should this article be renamed?)
• Does this thing actually exist? (I.e. Should this article be deleted?)

The answer to the first question is contained in the article itself. Thus, at the very least this article should be renamed.

The answer to the second question is more complex, and could perhaps be restated as:

• Does this thing actually exist as stated in this article? (I.e. Would someone without other knowledge of the topic get NPOV information here?)

In this discussion there are nationalist tendancies being shown that are clouding the issue. This is not about minimising any injuries that Poland has suffered, nor is it about revisionist history. This article, however, appears to me to be synthetic. As such not encyclopedic. Thus Delete - MeAgain 8 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Of course it exists and even outside the Nazi/Communist references.If you would bothered to read the links and articles you would see that they speak about antipolonism in Tsars Russia or in Prussian state where Poles were considered culturally inferior.

• Thanks for that witty rejoinder.

A - Sign your edits User:82.139.13.231.

B - I (surprisingly) do read the links, think a bit, and even look at other users contributions before entering my own opinion.

If you didn't understand what I was alluding to, let me be specific:

I was born in the United States and currently reside in Australia. I have no particular allegience to this or any other nation, and to be specific I have no personal interst in Poland. I do however belong in spirit to the Deletionist Association.

See, there I'm making it clear that I am responding to this article. Now if you would perhaps reciprocate and say (for example)

I'm from Guinea-Bissau and I like to make lots of small changes to articles about Germany,

It would be clear to others what you are responding to. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

• Keep & rename, content is helpful but the neologism is unsupported by usage. Wyss 8 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
• Keep69.218.25.180 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
• Keep 20:27, 8 July 2005 Ed Zietarski User:Ed Zietarski

Ed Zietarski (talk · contribs) has 23 edits, 16 of which are related to his user page and this VfD. HKT 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean now ?!! Are you weighting votes by voter's experience ? or are the novices not allowed to vote ? --Wojsyl (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither, of course. I'm pointing out evidence that is typically considered a red-flag for sockpuppetry. HKT 01:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comments: I think it would be a much better article if it was less focused on war atrocities (which, ofcourse, should be on wikipedia but I think are better covered in other places) and if it was more focused on attitudes to Poland/the Polish. �The page seems to be more modelled on Anti-Semitism when I think it would be better if it was similar to Anti-American sentiment. The page name as it stands isn't acceptable because "Anti-Polonism" just isn't a term used in English. As an example of Anti-Polish sentiment I offer you the "Polish plumber" perception in France, (see [16] if you have no idea what i'm talking about ;) -- Joolz 8 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
  • The term is used in English.. in Polish (antypolonizm) and German (antipolonismus/anti-polonismus) --Witkacy 8 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
• Comment: Regional phenomena of pejorative attitudes towards neighboring nationalities are a dime-a-dozen. It would be edifying to see significant evidence that, internationally, this phonomenon amounts to more than just telling jokes about Poles. People around the world also tell jokes about Chinese, Italians, Russians, French, British, Americans - all are stereotyped. To demonstrate the merit of this article, it is necessary to show that there is a unique, significant, international phenomenon of serious anti-Polish sentiments. I look forward to seeing such evidence, or lack thereof. (All similar extant articles that don't meet these criteria should be deleted; there's no reason to pick on Poland, but the VfDs must start somewhere. This is an excellent opportunity to try to prove this articles merits, and this VfD should be used as a precedent for similar VfDs). HKT 8 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

P.S. (Let's see how quickly User:Witkacy can create tiny stubs for each of the following. WP:POINT?):

Anti-Polonism - 514 google hits. Anti-Polish - 5,960 hits.

Anti-Italianism - 638 hits. Anti-Italian - 9,270.

Anti-Canadian - 10,900. Anti-Canadianism - 7,980.

Anti-Hungarian - 5,370.

Anti-Australian - 6,910.

Anti-Latino - 5,840.

As far as Anti-French (86,200), that article is merely a redirect to Anti-French sentiment in the United States, which doesn't even claim that it's an international phenomenon.

I can see it now.... Hundreds of new, non-notable stubs all saying "Anti-Timbuktuism is hostility towards those from Timbuktu" (and the like). I strongly urge someone to attempt to present evidence of "a unique, significant, international phenomenon of serious anti-Polish sentiments," as I mentioned above. HKT 06:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep for the title, but the body of the article requires a rewrite virtually from scratch. It's true that anti-Polonism is not really in use in the English-speaking world (514 Google hits), but the Polish word antypolonizm has 7,860 results. This is a considerable number, especially when you take into account that the Polish-language part of the internet is relatively small. The word was coined and is mainly used by right-wing media and politicians, most often in the context of "Jewish anti-Polonism" (antypolonizm Żydów), where it is supposed to function as a counter-concept to "Polish anti-Semitism". However, these right-wing circles exert a profound influence on the Polish mainstream, and the anti-Polonism meme has demonstrated a remarkable tendency to shift to any area of conflict between Poles and other nations, such as Polish-German and Polish-Russian conflict - of which this article is a prime example. In my opinion, the article should carefully explain this phenomenon and point out the rationale behind it - it should not do what it does now, i.e. present a muddled mishmash of any repressions that Poles were subjected to at various times in history. And it should certainly not try to "prove" anything about "anti-Polonism"; that would be original research at best and yet another case of repugnant patriotic soapboxing at worst. --Thorsten1 9 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

I suggest we use this intro:

" Anti-Polonism (alternatively spelled antipolonism; also, Polonophobia) is a translation of the Polish language word antypolonizm, which is an anti-semitic term used by Polish ethnic nationalists, mostly in the sense of "Jewish anti-Polonism", as a counter-concept to "Polish anti-Semitism". It denotes Polish hostility toward Jews."83.109.173.80 (talk · contribs)

--Witkacy 23:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Rename--Josiah 02:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hołek ҉ 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• My vote, as the nominator of record for this VfD, is an assumed Delete. What I no longer find surprising, but incredibly distressing, is the number of "Keep" votes and their related rationales, which (1) do not address a single point I raised in my nomination, and (2) have nothing whatsoever to do with any legitimate criteria for keeping articles. What is even more distressing is that a number of editors have been running around in what they apparently assume is the backwoods, on talk pages here, disparaging me. If the Polish Wikipedians /Black Book still existed, I have no doubt but that I would feature prominently in that nasty treasure trove of happily deleted trollishness. User:Witkacy has been especially nasty, deciding to take out his frustrations with me by stalking my contribs and blindly reverting me. Meanwhile, the article remains as I described it, a jumbled mess of every gripe Poles have with the history of the world, compiled by POV-pushers whose concept of WP:AGF, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility and WP:NPA are apparently sorely lacking. To date, the most sensible "Keep" has been by Thorsten1 who, it seems, has himself been an erstwhile persona non grata among apparently Polish wikipedians. What is presently in the article needs to go, not because of the made up word "anti-polonism" (for the record, I think one of the coolest things about languages is their ability to express new ideas by various rules of word-formation), but because the word, and the article attached to it, are little more than an unencyclopedic catalog of complaints. The information in the article may be encyclopedic, and should be put into other articles, as I said from the outset, but it categorically does not belong all in one place as it is, with the apparent specific intent of demonstrating the veracity of a concept that is non-notable if it even exists. Tomer ^TALK 15:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Tomer: I explicitly agree with everything you say. However, I think the only solution to the problem is replacing the present contents with something that makes more sense, rather than deleting the article itself, which is likely to come back anyway. --Thorsten1 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

... you are showing your frustrations ... with your aggressive comments...--Witkacy 16:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

... Witkacy, watch out for WP:Civility and WP:NPA... --HKT 16:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

... No doubt it's my Anti-Polonism oozing out the cracks of my withered and knotty exterior. Tomer ^TALK 16:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

How about responding to his allegations instead of resorting to unfounded ad-hominems, User:Witkacy? Just an idea. --Moritz 16:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only has the response from the keep side to the VfD been generally disappointing (with a small number of exceptions), but Witkacy's repeated deletion of the VfD notice in the first place, followed by his harrassment and blind reverting of Tomer, followed by his creation of a biased article for the purpose of harrassing user HKT (after a rather unpleasant discussion of the amusing nature of doing so on the Polish Wikipedians board), is most distressing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: not disappointing but overwhelming on the keep side, I think. It's Votes for deletion page, remember, not a talk page. I've rechecked and do not find any "unpleasant discussion" there, mere two brief comments. What's your problem here ? --Wojsyl (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disappointed that people voted "keep" (I haven't voted myself, as you might note), but rather that the comments made by the keep side (with a couple of exceptions) were quite disappointing; I've commented on exactly why above, did you notice that? Basically it boils down to not addressing the issues raised. And the discussion was unpleasant because it essentially outlined a strategy for harrassing a Wikipedia editor based on his username. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is customary to explain the rationale for voting either way. Many voters didn't do so, which is why they might be considered disappointing. I quote from Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion: "Votes without rationales may be discounted." --Moritz 19:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I see you guys started a personal crusade against me :)--Witkacy 18:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And again, you avoid making any comment to the allegations. --Moritz 18:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Moritz , account created on 15:11, 4 July 2005 (the same day when Shilo12 listed anti-Polonism for delete) see also [User contributions - (looks like a sockpuppet account)--Witkacy 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Jerk. I'm not a sockpuppet. Write me a mail if you want. I'm a newbie, yes, I didn't know that was a crime. Bah.--Moritz 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy: If an editor has amassed 140 edits in 6 days, it is extremely unlikely that he/she is a sockpuppet. Again, watch out for WP:NPA, as well as WP:bite. Moritz: Calling someone a jerk is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility (even as a retort). I understand that you're new, but you should read up on these and other Wikipedia policies soon. HKT 20:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read all of those pages, most of them more than once. Sorry for getting out of line. I was (and still am) quite insulted. --Moritz 20:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and your first edit was [17] - a typical newbie... :)--Witkacy 21:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I leave for a coupla hours and look what happens. Moritz, don't let Witkacy get to you. He can't come up with any rational arguments in favor of his positions, so he falls back on insults. If you follow him around WP a little bit, you'll quickly see that I'm not the first person he's made the subject of his attacks, nor until he's censured, are you likely to be the last. As for his allegations of sockpuppetry, even if I were using sockpuppets, Witkacy's behavior makes him uniquely unqualified to point it out. His accusations are further evidence that he simply does not understand the concepts of WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Tomer ^TALK 21:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Great teamwork guys! We Poles should learn from you :)--Witkacy 21:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you seriously still contend that I'm a sockpuppet? No that was not my first edit, since obviously I didn't do my first edits using a registered account, like pretty much everone else I did it anonymously. If you had bothered to look you would have noticed that I only registered an account because someone else in the very discussion you link to encouraged me to. Regardless of that, many of my edits (even as an anon) were in the VfD category because I think it's an important part of WP and, believe it or not, it was fairly easy to get into compared to updating the already excellent articles I typically wanted to contribute to. All that said, I don't understand why I'm defending myself against your unfounded allegations—you just continue doing what seems to be the only thing you can do, avoiding the real issue by attacking and discrediting other people. BTW HKT I want a freaking medal for not going against WP:NPA and WP:Civility at this point! --Moritz 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Witkacy and Tomer, please, take your discussion to your talk pages. I’ll try to answer some of questions asked here. No, a war between two countries means a disagreement or opposing interests, not anti-xxxism. However, if civil citizens of an occupied country are treated with unnecessary cruelty, or suffer planned ethnic cleansing it is a sign of great hostile and irrational prejudice. This article didn’t mean to double all the historic events, which are already described elsewhere only to single out those ones, which meant expulsion of Polish people. Please, note, that in the article Anti-Semitism in a section referring to Poland, there is a very wide description of Chmielnicki Uprising, which wasn’t even aimed in Jews, though in effect of it great number of Jews died. Soldiers, who died in equal fight will not be mentioned here. On the suggestions that we might have as well articles about anti-xxxisms referring to any other country. Yes, I think we might and we should. There is a lot of irrational prejudices and hostile attitudes of one people to another based only on biased convictions. If Poles think about Germans that they like order too much or Germans about Poles that they love mess, it’s not really harmful. However, if my friends are brutally treated by Austrian police just for driving too fast a car on Polish registration plates, and then heartily apologised upon showing their American passports, something is wrong. If my brother is refused to enter a bar in New Zealand only because he looks American, and apologised upon saying that he’s a Canadian with Polish origins, something is wrong either. If I see an American documentary film, where a young German boy is asked, how does it feel to have DNA of murderers, I would call it a huge prejudice. The same prejudices caused many disasters in the past and that no one plans a new war in the moment, doesn’t mean that it should be neglected. Small number of Google hits means nothing but that the problem is rarely mentioned in English language publications. I agree that there should be more information about the present situation, and the article will be developed in the future. I hope it answers your doubts. You are of course welcome to contribute in this article. --SylwiaS 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Jews were one of the main targets in the Chmielnicki Uprising. Now, as far as the main point being discussed here: You seem to agree that anti-Polonism is primarily a regional phonomenon, but you think that it deserves an article. You wrote that "if civil citizens of an occupied country are treated with unnecessary cruelty, or suffer planned ethnic cleansing it is a sign of great hostile and irrational prejudice." This is mostly true (though this doesn't prove anything about "irrational"), but such situations are also, sadly, extremely common. In any event, it seems that you'd at least agree that this article needs to be renamed as Anti-Polonism in Central and Eastern Europe, or something to that effect. Am I making a valid assumption? HKT 18:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, how about Europe, greater part of Asia and North America, though I'm not sure about Australia. --SylwiaS 18:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the main, yes. But the *main* were Poles. In CUprising and the Deluge Poland lost approximately 3 million of citizens, out of which Jewish losses IIRC are under half a million. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no argument there. HKT 03:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! That's a horse of a different color, as they say! If you could convince me of this, you'll have won my vote. HKT 18:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This was the Nazi pretext for war on Poland. Hitler and his thugs had used historical examples of Polish failures and aggression by foreign powers, to justify Polish inferiority and start the Blitzkrieg. Poles were equally victims of the Holocaust as the Jews. Germany was in the process of wiping out the entire Polish nation, to replace it with Germans. Western Slavs suffered twice, from Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin. This is widely known in public education and taught to all teenage students in Europe and North America. TheUnforgiven 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"This was the Nazi pretext for war on Poland." With all due respect, TheUnforgiven, that is sheer nonsense. No serious historian will dispute that the reason behind WW II was a vague desire to expand the German lebensraum eastward, coupled with a strong anti-Semitic urge and the sense of an anti-communist mission, plus a vague sense of Germanic superiority over Slavic nations - there was nothing particularly anti-Polish about Nazism. Let us not forget that Hitler, presumably representing Austrian Catholicism and not Prussian Protestantism, was initially seen as a welcome change in Poland; that Hitler was said to have admired Piłsudski's May Coup; that a phony peace lasted and even some degree of comradeship was staged between Sanacja Poland and Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1938. Even in the last days before the outbreak of WW II, Hitler was trying to force Poland into the position of a junior partner in his crusade against Bolshevism. There can be no doubt that the Nazis had little respect for the Poles and treated them with extreme inhumanity. But reducing the cause for WW II to some kind of "anti-Polonism" is at least as ridiculous as reducing the motivation of modern Palestinian suicide bombers to "anti-Semitism". --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

During WWII, the Nazis killed around the same amount of Poles as Jews. However, the Jews were much more severely targeted and almost all Polish Jews were slaughtered, while a much, much lower percentage of Poles were. Anyway, the Germans and Russians clearly hated the Poles deeply, but that is still a regional phenomenon. Why isn't there an article on anti-Tutsiism (though Witkacy may now quickly add a stub)? Tutsis in Rawanda were slaughtered mercilessly. HKT 22:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

HKT. Nobody is disputing that Jews suffered the most during the IIWW, but this is not the issue here. It is evident that Nazis were pursuing anti-Polonism (or more widely, Anti-Slav) policies - just check aticles on Lebensraum, Generalplan Ost, Armenian quote and related ones if you need more proof. Whether the phenomena is global or local (and I think it is global) should not matter much, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, I agree with everything you just wrote, except the last sentence; you don't need to convince me of the existence of regional anti-Polonism. (I only mentioned the bit about WWII in response to the previous post, but I agree that it's irrelevant to this VfD in general). The reason that I think that it's important to determine whether anti-Polonism is global or regional is that such regional phenomena are a-dime-a-dozen and not notable enough to be mentioned as distinct phonomena. I agree that regional anti-Polonism has been extremely severe and tragic. However, I think that it is only noteworthy in the context of regional conflicts and relations, and should be discussed only in the relevant historical articles. It isn't an isolated and independent phenomenon as is, for example, hostility towards people of African descent. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So, what is your problem with this article (except that it is in need of major rewrite)? The phenomena existed and still exists in a milder form, thus is encyclopedic and should be mentioned in Wiki - this is a bottom line. Rename should be discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for move and I look forward to this - current name is not perfect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. So you are saying that anti-Polonism is a unique international phenomenon, and that international anti-Polonism isn't simply xenophobia? I've already written that if you can convince me of this, I'll vote support. This is why I haven't voted yet. If you're willing to bring the evidence, I'm willing to look at it. HKT 17:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point. But then I will ask for you to describe to me where can we draw the line between general xenophobia and more specific anti-<insert ethinic group name here> feeling. Besides, didn't we estabilished without a doubt at least that anti-Polonism formed a part of Nazi ideology? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As to your second question: Yes, I believe so. Semantics aside, the Nazis severely and particularly hated the Poles. As to your first question... it's a very good question, and I believe it can be answered as follows: Usually, when people around the world tell a Canadian joke, for example, I would assume that they have no specific desire to deride Canadians. They're just playing on existant stereotypes, and they would just as soon tell a Latino joke or a Chinese joke. In other words, most mild instances of anti-X are only manifestations of a general desire to joke about stereotypes. When one finds that a specific group is widely targeted for any negative treatment or derision, in a manner that noticablely surpasses the negative treatment or derision of other groups, that indicates a unique phenomenon. Can you show me examples of this for Poles or Poland? HKT 23:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

First, if the answer to my second question above is yes, isn't this enough reason for article to exist - even if the only undisputable section would deal with IIWW period? Second. For the wider scope of anti-Polonizm. 1) I think that the 19th century germanization and russification of Polish population, under partitions, are examples of actions target specifically against Polish culture. 2) There is some evidence of anti-Polish feelings during the interwar period, and the following two quotes I will give here did convince me sometime ago that there is something more here then just xenophobia - perhaps they will do the same for you. David Lloyd George: An historic failure, which has won her freedom not by her own exertions, but by the blood of others source, at Versails he (wouldn't give the Poles Silesia like he wouldn't) "entrust a watch to a monkey., in 1939 Poland "met with the fate it deserved" source. John Maynard Keynes: Poland is an economic impossibility with no industry but Jew-baiting source. Also, both are quoted on the first two pages of Davies God's Playground Chapter XIX together with some other interesting quotes. The bottom line is that those important people, with world-wide influence, seemed to have some grudge with Poland. At least in case of DLG it did transform into significant influence - like blocking aid to Poland during the Polish-Soviet War (see this article for details). I could give you some more examples, but if you are not convinced by this nor by any articles from Category:Anti-Polonism, then I am not sure what else I can write to prove that this regretable phenomena does infact exist. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

HKT - please dont make fun of the massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda.--Witkacy 22:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let me assure you that the massacre of Tutsis is no laughing matter, though it has received a pitifully meager amount of international attention. I'm afraid that discriminating towards the regional phenomenon of anti-Polonism can serve only to eclipse other, very important phenomena. While none should have an "anti-____" article, making such an article will only diminish the apparent gravity of all those other terrible cases of severe regional hostility. Far be it from any of us to ridicule massacres. HKT 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Insights from Google:

• search: anti-polonism - 520 articles
• search: anti-polonism & anti-semitism - 489 articles

So, in 95% percent of cases, when anti-polonism is mentioned on the web, anti-semitism has to be mentioned also. This goes a long way to convince me that the word anti-polonism does not have an independent existence, but it is some kind of a construction in reaction to the concept of anti-semitism. The article should clearly reflect that fact, if it is to be kept. Editors who try to deny this connection are simply hiding their heads in the sand. Balcer 22:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, feel free to add it :) --SylwiaS 23:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The two are linked, because so many Jews were Polish. The article attempts to describe how Gentile Poles were victimised as if they were the Jewish targets. There is a distinction between them and Jews don't need all the press in the world. This honours the painful memories of being attacked by mistaken identity. TheUnforgiven 23:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Openness, transparency, consistancy - these are all good things for Wikki. Debate conducted as it has been to this point are not. As mentioned earlier, TheUnforgiven, in this highly charged VfD, it would be helpful to state your overall position in conjunction with your vote. Just as it is good form for users with very few edits to note that in their vote. For instance, looking over some of your contributions:

• [...] You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English. [...] I warned you about playing the stupid Nazi[.]
• Look at this racist Jew [...]
• [user] is the most biased administrator I have ever met, although I am sure of there being other Jewish admins [...].

allows me to assign your arguments their proper weight. In the event that I have misinterpreted your overall position, please correct me. In summation, could we have input from people for whom this is not a personal issue. This is taking my time away from creating PokéMon stubs. Aaron Brenneman 00:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaron_Brenneman#This_Page:_Is_Shite How could you be offended, with language such as shown so prominently on your User Page? When others heckle me with their vehement partisanship, I take no sides and spare no assailants. This is all prompted from their invasion of my peace and tranquility, with their POV edit warring. Put it into proper context, please... TheUnforgiven 01:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The manifest non-offensiveness of "shite" (in self-deprecating reference to one's own user page, even), hardly needs to be explained. On the other hand, there is no proper context for "You act just like Mexicans, pretend to not know English." and "Look at this racist Jew."--Pharos 01:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I get my stinging frustration with trolls from User:RickK. TheUnforgiven 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Translation of Polish language anti-semitic term antypolonizm (not used in English) which is only intended as counter-concept to Polish anti-semitism, I propose redirect to Anti-Semitism in Poland and description there.User:83.109.131.30
• Comment:Antipolonism has its roots long before rise of Nazism.Georg Forster for example considered Poles nothing more then barbaric primitives in his writings, so did many Prussian officials,not to mention Frederick the Great.Poland was viewed as barbaric, savage land without culture.Some writers went to say that Poles weren't members of white race because they were so primitive.Antipolonism is a real attitude and has much longer history then just XX policies of Germany or Soviet Union.

An example : http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html "Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries.

The stated aim of this scholarly study is to trace back the negative stereotypes of Poles entrenched in German historiography and popular culture ever since Prussia and Russia engineered the partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century. The treatise begins with a survey of authors and readers of the Prussian statistical publications in the period under review. We learn that the credibility of Beamtentumsliteratur (studies written by petty officials in Prussia) was often marred by corruption and dishonesty of said officials, as well as by their lack of proficiency in Polish. The data they collected were also marred by incompetence, ignorance and a classically hostile attitude toward the Other--in this case, toward the Poles. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften). A certain Lichtenberg (said to be Forster's friend) wrote that Poland was inhabited by "landowning despots, dirty Jews and plica" [Weichselzopf, or koltun]. The expression "German cockroaches" must have entered the English language owing to the similarly brutal descriptions of German immigrants to America by those who came earlier from the British Isles.

Among the specific complaints of these official record keepers were the prevalence of Catholicism among Poles (it was considered scandalous), low level of education, consumerism and vanity of the Polish landowners, poverty and servitude of the Polish peasantry, and the greed of Polish Jews who were seen as Poland's "third estate" and whose numerosity in Poland (by comparison to Prussia) irritated the German officials. üukasiewicz's conclusions are that the Prussian officials created a taxonomy within which persons of Polish nationality were perceived as inferior and in need of Prussian tutelage."

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1724846635492 More dangerous than an entertaining, if somewhat condescending, fascination with quaint folkloric customs was the tendency to link customs with biological characteristics, a topic explored in Chapter Eight, "Peopling Eastern Europe, Part II: The Evidence of Manners and the Measurements of Race." While Herder was reflecting on the Slavs, Fichte was teaching in Poland and writing negative, racist comments about the Poles. Polish women were slovenly and with a stronger sex drive than Germans (p. 335); Poland was full of wild animals, wild people, and Jews. A racist diatribe published in 1793 (Joachim Christoph Friedrich Schulz's Journey of a Livonian from Riga to Warsaw) was republished in 1941 after the Nazis had conquered Poland, reflecting a trend among German scholars from the eighteenth into the twentieth century to perceive, in the difference between Germany and Poland, a boundary between civilization and barbarism, high German Kultur and "primitive Slavdom" (p. 336).

Although concerned primarily with the emergence of racial classifications of Eastern Europeans, Wolff's chapter includes an interesting discussion of the writings of Georg Forster, a German born in Poland who traveled in Russia and with Captain Cook's second voyage to the South Pacific, for whom racial differences were significant only between white Europeans and Negroes (Poles, although oppressed, were still Europeans). In other writings, the black/white distinction was grafted onto the barbaric/civilized distinction in Europe itself, appearing in such extreme statements as Ledyard's claim that there were "no white Savages." Eastern Europeans, as barbarian, were therefore not white. (In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Ledyard interpreted the Tartars--a broad category that included, on occasion, Jews, Poles, and Russians--to be American Indians [p. 348].) www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s18/s18-blackbourn.pdf These European parallels with the Americas expressed contempt towards "uncultivated" peopleswithin Europe itself. In the German case, this meant Poles, and the motif runs through the 18th-century history of Prussian reclamation. The line of the Prussian "improvements" ran eastwards. Itbegan immediately to the east of Berlin in the Electoral March, then crossed the Oder to the Wartheand Netze marshes before turning south-east towards Silesia and north-east, to newly acquired partsof Pomerania and above all to West Prusia, the booty from the first Polish partition. On the easternmargins of protean Prussia, reclamation and settlement "secured" the border -for how could youprotect or even define a frontier that was under water half the year?Officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them. The draining of the Oderbruch wasintended to plant good German colonists where "superstitious" Wendish fishermen had lived, amental connection that was even stronger when it came to the new eastern territories. Frederick'sown views on "the slovenly Polish trash" of West Prussia were expressed in unflattering NewWorld parallels. They were like "Iroquois". Or: "I have seen this Prussia; I believe Canada is bettercultivated". This was "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" (note the metaphoricalundertones of the French verb "croupir" -sunk in, wallowing in, stagnating) I hope this books as well as roots of antipolonism that they show will be put in the text, which I do hope will stay on wikipedia.User:194.30.182.7

A lot of chauvinist and nationalist literature has been published in Poland, both during the stalinist People's Republic, and after the fall of communism. This is not news at all. But does reliable English scholars describe this "anti-Polonism"? I believe if we are going to have "anti-Polonism", we should also write an article about anti-Germanism, illustrating with half a dozen of pictures of Poles and Soviet-Russians killing German children. How about that?User:83.109.177.183

Out of three sources given only one was Polish.

Comment. What User:194.30.182.7 is describing is not so much about any specific German contempt of Poland, but rather the general idea of a cultural gradient from East to West. Speaking of which, the Polish image of Ukraine as "wilderness" was in fact strikingly similar to the German image of Poland - read Sienkiewicz's Ogniem i Mieczem some time. Should we collect such material, throw in horror stories about crimes committed by Ukrainian partisans against Polish civilians, plus stuff about SS Galicia and maybe some of Putin's remarks concerning the Ukrainian revolution, and then neatly label all this Anti-Ukrainianism? --Thorsten1 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to read comments from someone who unemotionally discusses the horrific problems with this article as it currently stands. Tomer ^TALK 05:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Forsters and Fredericks remarks are about Poland and Poles thought.And of course those beliefs led to persecution of Poles in Fredericks Prussia.

Weell, what;s anti-polonism for me (I am Pole): The phenomenon DOES exist, though it is not as widespread as anti-semitism and does not have so grave consequences. Not sure whether it deserves article on its own, but since other articles describing similar phenomenons do exists, why not this. Also, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER. When I started to contriubte to Wikipedia, it was said that if someone wants, he may make article about his favourite poker game variation, because there s enough place in wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper <- strange, last time it seems that people start to violate that rule by demanding that articles should cover "important" topics, should have size limits etc)

1. Attitude showed by many Westerners ridiculing any research done in Poland, which cause any opinion based on sources different from Western as "nationalist" and "chauvinistic" (see for example above, when quotes wre immedietely dismissed on basis that since Polish, they were probably biased and chauvinistic)
2. Attitude showed by Germans in the past (as e.g by Prussian king Frideric, Bismarck etc) that Poles are incivilised, can't govern themselves and should be turned into nice, decent Germans. (As well as all references to polnische wirtschat, polish troyan arse and all others).
3. Attitude showed by Russians that Poles are traitors of common Slavic family
4. Attitude showed by many Westerners, that Poles are tiny insignificant nation, so they should not be taken seriously and whenever Poles have different opinion it's because they are barbarian, arrogant, nationalistic and immature
5. Attitude showed by very few Jews that Poles are the most anti-semitic nation in the world and committed all crimes could be imagined and actively helped Nazis during holocaust (search for Bob Kolker in usenet and phrase "90% of Poles are swines)
6. Attitude showed by some racists and Nazis that Poles are untermenschen, not white, rather mongols and should be exterminated or expelled
7. Attitude which cause that most of Poles which appears in 7/10 of Western modern movies either criminals or dumb or at least black hat.
8. Phrases like "polish concentration camps" used in context when it is clear that the camps weren't even on territory on Poland (and which caused that in oen high school children polled answered that Nazis were of Polish nationality)
9. Attitude which causes Poles to be safe object of widespread ethnic slurs and which was described by (but to tell the truth, few).
10. Recent anti-Polish mania in France (e.g. famous Figaro article about most-antisemitic country etc)

Most anti-semites do not describe their actions as anti-semitic. Similarly, many of actions which I would describe as caused by anti-polish sentiment, would not be described as such by people who commited them. People rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes. Ah, well, you may I am a bit bitter here, but if you are not Pole trying to discuss with Western guys, you have no idea how it feels.

Szopen 11:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we are making such an extensive list, let's also add.

1. A tool of propaganda used by some Polish right wing nationalist (and often antisemitic) politicians and writiers, who believe that all of Poland's past, present and future misfortunes are to be blamed on omnipresent and raging anti-Polonism, present especially among Jews. For an example of this, see: [18],[19],[20].
2. A word used by some Poles to deflect any charges of Polish Antisemitism, by bringing attention to the supposedly equivalent and entirely similar phenomenon of Jewish anti-Polonism.

Balcer 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Szopen, although some Poles are eagerly collecting evidence (such as Witkacy in his sandbox), I have never run across the phrase "Polish death camps" in the wild. However, I have heard and seen it umpteen times in Poland or Polish media, who are trying hard to convince their audience that the rest of the world is constantly talking about "Polish death camps". That way - and in many other ways - they are spreading and consolidating the stereotype that the world outside (and not only outside) Poland is anti-Polish to the core. As self-centeredness goes, the Poles are right up there with the Americans, Jews, Germans, and French (in no particular order, and not a complete list). Unfortunately, as you say, people rarely realise that they are driven by stereotypes, Poles being no exception, but are usually just brilliant at identifying the stereotypes other people are driven by... But, to pick up on what you said, if you are not a Western guy trying to discuss with Poles, you have no idea how it feels. ;) --Thorsten1 22:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Balcer-can you point any examples.So far you pointed to books that detail antipolish statements made by various people.While perhaps oversensetive, this do not fulfill the criteria you wrote. Molobo

Look, for me the whole book is one giant example, and just about any random paragraph would prove my point. If you really read this book and see nothing more than a harmless list of anti-Polish behaviours, then I don't think I am going to convince you of anything. I am reluctant to paste and translate quotes from the book here, since this would needlessly propagate its rather pathological views. Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is one book. I really fail to see, when and why the voting on Anti-Polonism changed into discussion on Anti-Semitism? In which place the article, which is the subject of this voting, is offending to any non-Poles? --SylwiaS 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Szopen made a long list of meanings, so I made some additions for completeness. Plus, as you know very well, the problem is not just with this one book, but with a widespread set of beliefs held by at least 10% of the population of Poland (as reflected by their voting preferences). Balcer 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

10% of population? Hmm... Let's see: election to the Polish parliament in 2001 - frequency 46%, election to the European parliament - 21%. In the same time it is widely supposed in Poland that our president is of Jewish origin and yet he was voted a president of Poland, twice. Frequency in 1995 - 68% and in 2000 - 61% and he won in the first round. --SylwiaS 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's not quibble over numbers, which of course cannot be precise. I had in mind the fact that a party like the League of Polish Families regularly receives between 10% and 15% support in public opinion polls. Now, of course, let me say here that I am not accusing all the supporters of that party of being anti-semites or xenophobes or whatever. Having said that, it does appear to me that some politicians from that party do employ the idea of anti-Polonism in their rhethoric, so it must find at least some resonance among party supporters. Balcer 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sylvia, I am not sure if your comment really proves your point - or the opposite. The question is why do so many people care at all, and sometimes obsessively, whether or not "Kwaśniewski vel Stolzman" (try Google for this one!) is "of Jewish origin"? Perhaps because they want to prove that, at best, he can be president although he is Jewish - thus proving the Polish electorate's generous tolerance. And at worst because they want to prove he is one of "them" (oni) not "us", that he is an agent of some foreign powers-that-be and working against the Polish national interest. Thus, your example demonstrates the very reciprocity of the two concepts, anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism. --Thorsten1 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I understand Balcer says that people with an anti-Semitic bias are a serious problem in Poland. I guess that they were those people, who let everyone know that Kwaśniewski is Stolzman according to them. What I meant was that voting people didn’t care for what the other prejudiced people were saying only voted for the man they wanted to be a president. So the prejudiced people make only a big fuss but without any serious support. Then, I think they are not as big problem as Balcer claims. That was my point. I didn’t vote for Kwaśniewski and I don’t think it makes me an anti-Semite. I would rather say that one people longed to some advantages of communism while other didn’t and voted according to that, so the prejudiced people had nothing to do with decisions of voters. I still think that the article at hand is not about that at all and is very important for many other reasons mentioned in the discussion above. --SylwiaS 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sylwia, I saw where you are coming from in the first place. My point was that the same facts you mention can just as well be seen from a different angle. And you are certainly entitled to your opinion that the prejudiced anti-Semitic people are not as big a problem as Balcer claims. And we are entitled to our opinion that the anti-Polish people are not as big a problem as the article claims. Are we even, then? --Thorsten1 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country. I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic. The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem. --SylwiaS 23:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"The particular anti-Semitic people are not as big problem, because they are hardly taken seriously in their own country." Fair enough (although one might indeed beg to differ), but then how do you know that anti-Polish people are being taken more seriously in their own countries than anti-Semites are in Poland? Knowing the situation both in and outside Poland, let me assure you that anti-Polish hostility is much less tangible in the west than anti-Semitic hostility is in Poland.

"The article describes many people killed, because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call it a small problem" (read "as small as anti-Semitism"). Please see my response to TheUnforgiven above: The insinuation that the outbreak of WWII and the ensuing cruelty against Poles (Jews, Russians, ...) has its cause in "anti-Polish prejudice" is not supported by international (or Polish, for that matter) scholarship. It is original research at best and Polono-centric soapboxing at worst. Also, what are you actually comparing here - the present verbal anti-Semitism in a country virtually without Jews with the anti-Polish atrocities of WWII? Let us compare the past with the past and the present with the present, shall we? No matter how you look at it, the death toll of German and Russian anti-Polish atrocities will always be much higher than the death toll of Polish anti-Jewish atrocities. But to belittle the relevance of anti-Semitism in modern democratic Poland by comparing it to atrocities in occupied Poland is anything but fair discussion. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten, I’m afraid that again you know where I come from, but try to show my words from a different angle. I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two. I said: I don’t say their prejudices are not problematic (read: every anti-Semitic sentiment is a problem). How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist? Did I say that there shouldn’t be an article about anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism in Poland shouldn’t be described in Wikipedia? Please, let me conclude my opinions to avoid any future misunderstandings:

1. Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem and deserves its own article.

2. The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself.

3. Every prejudice should be condemned. (read: if you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well).

4. I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another. I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were. I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not.

I really think I already said all I had to say about this issue. I hope then, we can stop this discussion now, as there is really nothing new I can add to it. I understand that we both agree that anti-Semitism exists and is a serious problem. I also understand that we disagree in our opinions on existence of anti-Polonism and its importance. We don’t have to agree, really. --SylwiaS 15:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"I wrote just three sentences, but you avoided the one, which would contradict your interpretation of the remaining two." First off, when it comes to being selective about which points to respond to I do not think I can best you... However, the sentence you are referring to does not at all contradict what I said, considering the circumstantial evidence. I have, of course, no way of knowing what you really meant to say. To me, however, the statement in question comes across as a rather phony concession. "How am I trying to belittle the importance of anti-Semitism? Did I say that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist?" Hell no, you even said it was "problematic", even though it was not "not as big [a] problem". This raises the question - "not as big as what"? Well, not as big a problem as the "many people killed because of anti-Polish prejudice, I wouldn’t call [this] a small problem". You are evidently comparing modern Polish anti-Semitism, which does not kill, to historic anti-Polish sentiments, which did kill. This is logically incorrect.

As for your other statements: "Every prejudice against a nation, religion etc. is a problem " - yes - "and deserves its own article" - no. This one does, though. "The fact of existence of extreme opinions of some people from one nation about another people, do not diminish the importance of prejudice against the nation itself." True enough. But then I never implied otherwise and it's not really the issue here, either. What I said was the concept of anti-Polonism was designed in response to accusations of Polish anti-Semitism and does not really have an independent existence outside Polish-Jewish relations. Even the fiercest proponents of the concept rarely use it in any other way than to counter the accusation of one-way prejudice and hostility in Polish-Jewish relations. "Every prejudice should be condemned." Yes, but please not here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to "condemn" anything, as condemnable as it may be. We are working on an encyclopedia, not a collection of indictments. "If you wish to add examples of prejudiced opinions of any Polish politicians or mass media, you are free to do so; you have to your disposition articles like: History of the Jews in Poland, Anti-Semitism with two Polish sections, Kielce Pogrom, Massacre in Jedwabne and many others, lately you also voted to keep Anti-Semitism in Poland so you can add it there as well." What is that supposed to mean? Something like "this is our playground, the Polonophobes have their own playgrounds"? Also, may I remind you that I voted keep on this article? What I criticise is the body of the article, not the title. May I further remind you that I initially voted delete on Anti-Semitism in Poland because of the article's clear anti-Polish POV message, and did not change my vote until Prokonsul Piotr - whom you will hardly suspect of being anti-Polish - rewrote the article from scratch? So please stop trying to frame me as a Polonophobe. "I never tried to make a death toll competition to show that one prejudice is more important than another." No, but you nonsensically juxtaposed the supposedly harmless anti-Semitism in modern Poland and the harmful anti-Polonism in WWII and earlier conflicts, which obviously had a higher death toll than the former. "I think the numbers are of secondary notion, as people should be always put in the first place. No matter how many people died, they suffered the same, and suffered unjustly. Not for what they did, but for what their origins were." These are all noble declamations that no one would contradict. "I don’t think we have the right to draw a line showing where it is a serious problem and where it is not." No, but we do have the right and the duty to draw a line between a decent article based on established knowledge and attempts to establish "new" knowledge and usages in Wikipedia. "We don’t have to agree, really." That is the one thing in your post I wholeheartedly agree with. Let's bury the hatchet until next time, then. --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Not as big as Balcer claimed. That was my meaning and I already wrote it before. I don't see any sense in responding to all the other things. If you wish to read my words as not sincere, I really cannot help it. Let me assure you that my hatchet is safely buried. --SylwiaS 20:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I am not out to promote the image of Poland as a country with a big antisemitism problem, as Sylwia's remarks seem to be implying. I only pointed out that in Poland there are nationalist groups and parties promoting ideas unacceptable by the liberal mainstream, xenophobia and anti-semitism in this case, and that these parties can count on the support of about 10% of the electorate. This is a phenomemon quite similar in kind to what occurs in France (Jean-Marie Le Pen), Germany (National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)), Italy (Northern League (Italy), and many other Western democracies in good standing. At the same time, the presence of such phenomena needs to be acknowledged and, in my opinion only of course, opposed. In particular, we should not advance the ideas of such parties by creating articles such as this one, in its current form. Balcer 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Balcer, I know you didn't and also please, accept my apology for referring to your name so many times in the discussion above. I should have said: Not as a big problem as I first thought you claimed, before you clarified you didn't, which was in fact before the huge discussion emerged. I really shouldn't have used the big stretch, which could insinuate that you promoted a bad image of Poland. --SylwiaS 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thorstan that is absurd, since I fail to see any connection between Antipolish sentiment and statements made by Frederick the Great, Forster or prussian officials.Likewise antipolonism of Russians has nothing connecting it with antisemitism as it based on Russian state aspirations and accusing Poles of betraying panslavic ideals etc. Hence the accusation that antisemitism and antipolonism are connected doesn't survive a simple test.Of course that doesn't mean that antipolish statements by Jewish representatives don't fall into category of antipolonism and vice versa.But still antipolonism is neither the creation of antisemitism/as Russian and Prussian examples show/ nor is the tool of mythical ultranationalists of Poland.Molobo

Molobo, I apologise, I was wrong. My idea that anti-Semitism and anti-Polonism were somehow connected was crazy, as it did not survive your test. And, of course, the existence of ultranationalists in Poland is just a myth.... ;) Seriously, when I said that the concept of anti-Polonism is a reaction to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism, I did obviously not want to imply that nobody had ever said anything bad about Poles before. If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews, I might have to change my mind. But be careful to observe WP:NOR. Good luck, and good night. --Thorsten1 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"If you can produce any plausible evidence that the concept of anti-Polonism (not the fact that people made statements hostile toward Poles) was in fact widely used in the 19th century, and not in connection with Jews". It has been already shown that Poles were treated as inferior and barbaric people since XVIII century and legislation followed-for example polish nobility had to put higher taxes in Prussia, polish monasteries were persecuted("lairs of idleness" according to Frederick, polish language forbidden.)And of course antipolish policies and ideology of Russian officials(shown btw in the first source in the article) weren't connected to antisemitsm at all as they were based on Russian imperial ambitions and panslavism.Molobo

Yes, Molobo, it has been duly shown that Poles were considered and treated as inferior by non-Poles at various times in history. But since nobody seriously doubted this, you didn't actually have to "show" this, either. What I did ask you to "show" was that the concept of anti-Polonism has really been used to collectively describe and interpret the various injustices done to Poles, and to assert a genetic connection between, say, the tax policy in 19th century Prussia, accusations of Polish anti-Semitism in the Jedwabne debate, and "Polish jokes" in 21st century America. You are constantly talking about historical events, whereas I am talking about concepts. You being a student of "International Relations and Journalism and Social Communication", as you say on your user page, should be aware of the difference - otherwise you might run into some serious trouble during your studies. (Unless maybe you are studying at Rydzyk University, whose motto puts fides and patria on an equal footing with ratio.)

Hammering my point home (hopefully), the issue is not whether or not non-Poles have acted hostilely towards Poles. The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles, and not primarily as a counter-weight to allegations of Polish anti-Semitism. To the best of my knowledge, it has not; you have so far failed to put forward any evidence that I am wrong. Unless you can come up with anything convincing, I will stick to my vote - keep the title, but rewrite the body of the article to highlight the origin of the concept in Polish-Jewish relations, and to keep much more critical distance to the concept.

On a formal note, please remember to always sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and a time stamp. This will make the discussion easier to follow. --Thorsten1 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"The issue is whether or not the concept "anti-Polish" has seriously and verifiably been employed as heuristic tool for understanding any behaviour hostile towards Poles"

At least two sources linked to the article use this.Molobo

Two is too little. And kindly sign your posts. --Thorsten1 12:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Will three be enough ? Four ? Twenty three ? Or just twenty two ? Or maybe just five ? Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist.--Molobo

"Frankly just one example is enough if something is proven to either exist or not exist." I did not say that your usage of anti-Polonism does not exist. I can see that it exists in your post, even if I hadn't known about its existence before. But that doesn't make it encyclopedically valid. Look, my dog exists, too. Does that mean I can write an article about it? Why, Wikipedia is not paper, right? Seriously, when 95% of all authors who use the concept of anti-Polonism use it in a very specific way, with the other 5% using it in a more universal way, and someone goes and builds an entire article on the "universal" usage, then it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if one quotes two or twenty-two examples for the "universal" usage. Nie potrafisz zrozumieć czy po prostu nie chcesz zrozumieć? --Thorsten1 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly urge keeping the title, Antipolonism, which is a noun and refers to a real phenomenon, and revising the contents as appropriate. Logologist, 13 July 2005.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. CDC (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese raping chair

A hoax, no such thing: article was originally lifted verbatim but has since been re-worded (a bit) and the source credited. However, every single hit from google (about 11) is an identical quote from that same source, and it should not be taken seriously. Sadly, half of the google hits are crediting Wikipedia for this unpleasant bit of misinformation. Veledan 4 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• Have now noticed OP has been banned too. - Veledan 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely with Veledan's assessment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, dubious source (it's actually: http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-227.htm). Non-encyclopedic. Also assumedly bad faith on the article creators part. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
• Delete as per Moritz. Jaxl 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
• Delete. Wellmann 4 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
• Keep Above URL references a published source "The Illustrated Book of Sexual Records." Some googling brings up: ISBN 0517448998 —Tokek 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)often Updated vote made below.
  • Amazon.com link —Tokek 5 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
    • That book is the single source I am suggesting should not be taken seriously - Veledan 5 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
      • Have you read the book? I haven't. —Tokek 5 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)
• Delete I have not read the book but I checked out the author. He is not a China specialist nor, as far as I can see, an expert on sex. I too would assume bad faith. Lao Wai 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
• Delete was waiting for this to happen. There's a long history of academic orienatalism that tends to portray the East as inscrutable, uncivilized, and a negative mirror of the West. And, attaching the word "ancient Chinese" makes whatever ludicrous contraptions more credible - take magnets, aphrodisiacs, life extension creams, and of course, raping chairs for example. Also, I tried to find ISBN 0517448998 at the many universities/libraries around Boston with no luck. These institutions have millions of volumes to their credit, and somehow overlooked this book... --Muchosucko 5 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
  • Comment A.the Orientalism article says the term is used to refer mainly to eighteenth and nineteenth century works, not a book that was published in the 20th century. B. ISBN numbers can change with newer editions. This book appears to have gone through several editions, so you will have better luck searching for the title. C. I am not aware of any criticisms against the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. —Tokek 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    • Reply A. I agree that some things are _outdated_, but it is dangerous to devalue an idea's worth just because it is old - as I'm sure many of the older Wikipedians here agree. Perhaps we should deny the value of the French Revolution because it is an 18th century idea? Or deny the importance of Montesquieu's ideas on liberty because it is three centuries old. I think civilization is a progression of ideas succeeding one another, building on itself. You cannot stand without a solid foundation, and good posture requires you to understand your foundation. B. Good point, a search via Wikipedia pulls up 4 ISBNs for different editions : ISBN 093332863x, ISBN 0863691293, ISBN 0517448998, ISBN 0863691307. I cannot, for the life of me, find a copy of any of the 4 ISBNs via a title search among the millions of volumes at any academic institution near Boston - incl. all the libraries of Harvard, BU, BC, Boston Public Library, Simmons, MIT, Emerson, The Fenway College Consortium (Emerson College, Emmanuel College, Lesley University, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences, Museum of Fine Arts, New England Conservatory of Music, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Wheelock College), Umass Boston, The Five College Consortium (Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, Hampshire, Smith, Umass Amherst), Inventory of nearby Borders books (Amazon.com partner, and this book was out of print since 1987), Barnes and Nobles. It is available at faraway book stores. Apparently, it's not even available on Amazon since this book is out of print. It's only available via used book sales at high pricesTokek, if you can find it for me at any nearby university, library, or bookstore, I'd be more than happy to get it and share its contents/credibility with Wikipedia. C. I am not aware of any criticisms against the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. - True. But also: I am not aware of any support of the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. - I have no idea what kind of scholar Simons is. I don't know if he's affiliated with a university. I don't know his specialty, his fact checking, his methods, his biases, his education, his references, his experience etc. etc..--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Reply I am currently at the UIUC library's main stack waiting on the staff to retrieve the book, which should not take more than 15 minutes. Will update with my review. --130.126.37.53 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
    • Reply Books Simons has authored, and the link to the card catalogue page.
    • Reply Hah! I commend you for your dedication - I probably would have been too embarassed to ask - and I look forward to your review. I stand by my position that this is most likely non-encyclopedic and non-notable. --Moritz 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
    • Reply Me too! - Veledan 5 July 2005 17:34 (UTC) *prepares for judgment on original position*
• Delete. A single dubious source is not enough to base an encyclopedia article on. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• The book was published by Virgin books in 1982 in the UK, Delilah Communications in 1983 in the US, Library of Congress number 82-74032. The book's cover is a cartoon depiction of a female leg. To get this book, by the way, I had to see 3 library employees, all female. The book appears to be more commercially oriented rather than academically oriented. The book contains small stub-length sections with titles such as "Most ___", "First ____", "Largest ___", "Rarest ___", etc. with photographs and cartoon drawings sprinkled throughout. The raping chair article on page 106 is titled "First raping chair introduced." While some sections give references to works or particular people, the raping chair section lacked any. In the introduction section of this book the author explains:

"On the items set fourth in the present volume four basic types may be identified-

1. matters of fact, well attested
2. matters of fact, poorly attested
3. matters of subjective evaluation
4. matters of fiction and legend

[…]I leave the reader to judge to which class any particular item belongs…" Thus this article definitely gets a new Strong delete vote from me. —Tokek 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

• • Reply - Well, what do you think of Said's theory of orienatalism now? Still outdated?--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
  • Reply - Many thanks for your impressively helpful edit Tokek! - Veledan 5 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
• Delete per Veledan and Lao Wai. StopTheFiling 21:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy-merge & redirect. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Phil Solem

Merge into The Rembrandts (possibly as members list): The article describes hardly anything more than his membership of this band. --IByte 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

• If you want something merged, merge it. Don't nominate it for deletion. Deletion is not article merger. Uncle G 4 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm still learning Wikipedia. Perhaps I'll do that tomorrow or something.
    • Due to this misunderstanding, I'm merging the page before the lag time is over (if anyone has a problem with that, see my Talk page). --IByte 6 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

--IByte 4 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

• Merge with The Rembrandts. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:46 (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 00:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Akuma (mythology)

Original research by Anonymous IP here: [21] later moved to here: Akuma (mythology). I vote delete. —Tokek 4 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

• Delete unless somebody seriously expands or improves the page. I don't know about original research, but I wasn't able to verify the information, there are no sources given and notability is not established. --Moritz 4 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
• I couldn't verify this from an authoritative source on Japanese Mythology, although it does get referenced a fair amount. If it turns out to be game-related, it should be merged somewhere under appropriate location. Anyway, I pass. — RJH 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
• Keep Widely known name in Japanese culture. Word appears often in novels, television, film, etc. both as a translation of the word "devil" from English (and similarly from other Western languages) and in original Japanese fiction. Please note that the existence of akuma is not what needs verification; the existence of the concept of akuma is what does, and yes, it is both notable and verifiable, with more than 600,000 hits on Google. Important aspect of Japanese culture. Fg2 July 7, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Comment Yes, devils appear in works of fiction, but they're as Japanese mythology as superman - that is, not at all. Swap "Japan", "akuma", and google count with any other country, translated word, etc, and your statement is most likely true. For example: (teufel is a) "Widely known name in German culture. Word appears often in novels, television, film, etc. both as a translation of the word "devil" from English (and similarly from other Western languages) and in original German fiction. Please note that the existence of teufel is not what needs verification; the existence of the concept of teufel is what does, and yes, it is both notable and verifiable, with more than 800,000 hits on Google. Important aspect of German culture." That's like saying that we need about a dozen foreign language dictdef stubs for every English word. This reasoning is problematic because it doesn't address the real issue, which is the current article. The anonymous IP's contribution is bogus. Even on the slim chance that it was actually describing a character in a real work of fiction, without referring to the specific work of fiction it is placed out of context and equally worthless and meaningless. Furthermore akuma, as described in dictionaries, do not refer to entities specific to Japanese mythology. —Tokek 7 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

You probably think you know who Thomas Edison was. But there is one aspect of Edison that might surprise you: Thomas Alva Edison, Shinto god. Yes, the American inventor's likeness appears on ema at a prominent, important, and ancient shrine, and when visitors to the shrine write their wish on one of these ema, they bow in prayer to Edison. My point is that Japanese culture alters the concepts that Japan takes from the West, in ways that are worthy of attention. The anonymous user has done Wikipedia a service by separating a longstanding cultural phenomenon (Christianity reached Japan at least as early as 1549) from the popular anime/game/manga fluff. Give this article time to grow, and let's see how the Japanese notion of akuma differs from the Western devil. Fg2 July 7, 2005 06:41 (UTC)

You may have a point if we were voting on "Thomas Edison (mythology)". However you don't seem to deny the fact that what the anon IP contributed here is original research, which is arguably worse than game article fluff. The Japanese term "akuma" is already covered at the akuma article. Is there enough content to justify yet another akuma article? —Tokek 7 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

• Delete. The article akuma covers the concept already without becoming original research. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Merge to akuma by making this the expansion of the mythology definition. )

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 --Allen3 ^talk 01:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Peers

This looks like vanity, and POV besides. Jeff Anonymous 4 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity. Jaxl 4 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: non-notable NPOV-violating vanity page with hardly any content. (Think it might be [her]?) --IByte 4 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Sietse 5 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
• Delete. The only contributor has blanked out his/her contribution now. —Tokek 8 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity, and now blank page! --Edcolins July 9, 2005 12:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 08:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoon feeding

• Delete. Hard to understand, misleading title, and at best redundant with Wikipedia:NPOV. Style and how-to articles represent all of Wikipedia, and need to be held to high standards of clarity and purpose. Although the creator keeps adding to it, there's no substance to base it on. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
• Keep--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • I was willing to discuss some sort of merger between this article and Wikipedia:NPOV (as seen on Wikipedia_talk:Spoon_feeding) however Monroe wishes to remove this article before we even discuss such an option. If this article fits cleanly within a subdivision of the Wikipedia:NPOV article, then I would be honored to include it in the main NPOV guideline. I have asked Monroe to join me in discussion on Talk for such a merger, however it seems that he is content simply to file a VfD.--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Four other users have used this article in helping reach concencus on pages of which I am not involved with nor do I have contact with the editors.--kizzle July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Actually, as can be seen on Wikipedia_talk:Spoon_feeding, kizzle and I have been discussing this article endlessly, to no avail. People can't seem to even understand what the article is about, even after all this. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page, the last comment is me requesting more information from you to help either clean up or merge before posting a VfD. You completely ignored my request. That's what I mean by lack of discussion. --kizzle July 6, 2005 03:21 (UTC)

• Merge a synopsis to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Better off rewriting from scratch. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
• Delete, as presently written this is unclear, not very useful, and rather redundant with other MOS entries. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 12:07 (UTC)
• Delete, delete and start over, the way it is right now is just a poorly hidden attempt at preeching christian "values" about abortion. Myself July 4, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  • Wow, as I am pro-choice, I don't know how I managed to preach christian "values" about abortion, I was just trying to make a point about neutrality! --kizzle July 5, 2005 14:29 (UTC)
  • I assume you're joking. The article shows how to handle a very controversial and polar debate like abortion in a NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

OK, instead of just deleting all the info here, maybe lets talk about what is wrong with it. For those that believe the page is POV, where is it POV? Specifically what passages? For those that want it written over from scratch, what specific aspects do you disagree with, in either content and/or form? And for those that want it merged to NPOV, where is a good place to put it? --kizzle July 5, 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• My opinion is merge either A) a new section on WP:NPOV somewhere between A simple formulation and An example or B) a new section in Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

K, will draft something along this article's lines for inclusion in WP:NPOV--kizzle 23:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This provides information at a glance on the subcommittee and could prove an important resource; deletion would be ill advised.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense, no such place has ever existed. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Gold city, california

Probable hoax; Google turns up nothing significant. The flying saucer stuff is obvious (no 19th century sightings--that's a peculiarity of the 20th century) but since I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be at least one miner's camp in the Gold Rush with this name, I'm putting it on VfD. Neither Google, my National Geographic Atlas, nor my southern or northern California Gazetteers, which include ghost towns, reference this place. Antandrus (talk) 4 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 (2 votes each way). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

At17

Given ample time to show some importance of this Hong Kong band, the anon has failed to do so. This article meets no requirements of WP:MUSIC and is obviously band vanity. Harro5 July 4, 2005 23:57 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)
• Keep, the article "shows some importance" to anyone who's heard of Twins or can be bothered to look them up. Band vanity is a very implausible assertion. They have 3 albums out [22], [23], [24] and so they pass WP:MUSIC. Kappa 5 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
  • If it's notable, are you going to do something about fixing the article up? It can't stay in its current state. Harro5 July 7, 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Weak keep such a close call, and they almost lost me just on the basis of ripping off KISS's makeup. Still, they have at least 2 albumns (the third is just a concert album) on a major label (EMI), so much to my sadness, I'm voting to keep this girl band crap. -Harmil 5 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
  • Why is a concert album less proof of notability than a regular album? Kappa 6 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking a concert album is just a collection of their older work, as performed at a concert. They're much cheaper to make and thus no real evidence that the band is able to command the kind of investment that most major (or large indie) label labels will put into an album. There are, of course, other metrics, but as far as album count goes, it makes sense to ignore concerts. -Harmil 9 July 2005 00:30 (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. CDC (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Tube Bar prank calls

Unencyclopedic.--Nabla 2005-07-05 00:04:15 (UTC)

• Keep. Very interesting. Sounds like the inspiration for Moe on The Simpsons. Visit the external link. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
• Weak keep; I'd have to agree with DoubleBlue that this sounds like the inspiration for Moe. Jaxl 5 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Keep, link from prank call and Moe's Tavern#Prank calls. --Shaddack 5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
• Keep as per Shaddack --IByte 5 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
• Keep since sources are cited within. —RaD Man (talk) 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
• Maybe Delete Not sure if one web page counts as a proper source. If these are legit and are really that famous, how about some additional evidence of importance? Particularly if it's notable for being the influence for Moe, we need evidence of this. Wikipedians saying that it sounds like the influence for Moe without sources amounts to original research. Friday 6 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
  • Alright, somehow you convinced me to do some research on it. Luckily, it was very easy. Check Google and you'll get no end of hits. I've added a few to the Tube Bar prank calls page including some Wikipedia links. (By the way, it turns out page 2 of the external link that was already referenced did mention that it was the inspiration for Moe.) Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. Woohookitty 08:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What The Muffins?

This is an advertising article for a non-notable website. Much of the article text comes from the website's FAQ, suggestive of advertising. The website itself appears to have a limited active fan-base. Its fan discussion board has only 142 members. Google retrieves 1,600 results but gives the "omitted similar" message after 55 results. Most hits seem to be blogish references. Note that the redirect for this page is listed below. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC) +

• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic, spammy and non-notable. Thanks Tobycat for putting this up - I had watched the page but didn't have time to instigate the VFD process. Onlyemarie 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Delete nn -Harmil 9 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (deletion actually done during removal of redirects phase of processing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/What The Muffins?) --Allen3 ^talk 00:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What The Muffins

This is the redirect page to What The Muffins? which is up for deletion above. Both are up due to lack of notability and advertising. Tobycat 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

• Delete. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
• Comment: This should either be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion or mentioned in the above VfD. Sietse 5 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)
  • Ooo, that's right. There's so many processes around here it is easy to goof up. Sorry. Tobycat 5 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Willy Charleton

Non-notable local rich boy (or wannabe rich boy). DS 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and is unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
• Delete - for reasons cited above.--Bhadani 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns -Harmil 9 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, unverifiable vanity. --Edcolins July 9, 2005 12:11 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a short article with no context. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)

Maksim Shulman

Run-of-the-mill vanity page? Think so.DS 5 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Tokek 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.