Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 5

< July 4	July 6 >

July 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 17:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Dildo Babies[edit]

Apparent hoax/joke page, zero google hits on band name, and 'albums' Econrad 5 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Delete nn, band vanity. Jaxl 5 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sounds like a poor parody of GWAR. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
Keep Why silence their art just because you dont like it?--Musachachado 5 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
- No, we're voting to delete it, because it's failing the MUSIC guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
Delete, either hoax or non-notable. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 04:02 (UTC)
Delete not notable. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)
Delete per JamesBurns. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:05 (UTC)
Delete …Guy M… ^(soapbox) July 5, 2005 13:17 (UTC)
Delete really looks like hoax. Look at names of alleged members and alleged albums. Has anyone tried to verify these? (Waste of time, IMHO). --WCFrancis 5 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
Delete I tried verifying the band, via google, yahoo, and allmusic. Zero hits. The one user who voted to keep registered today. Econrad 5 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Delete Pedant 2005 July 5 18:55 (UTC)
Delete as a sockpuppet-supported hoax. It did, however, make me laugh out loud. Wouldn't break my heart to see this at BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 5 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Delete at best band vanity, but probably just a hoax. One of the member names is from Boogie Nights. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
Delete. Was fun while it lasted. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 13:00 (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. – AB CD 17:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evincii[edit]

Self-promotion of non-notable 'beta' website. Only 11 displayed hits. From article: "This entry for Evincii was created by one of the part-creators of Evincii.", "The online version of Evincii is still in beta mode." Potential Longs Drugs connection unverifiable. Niteowlneils 5 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)
Delete, nn. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 05:50 (UTC)
Delete nn. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
Delete nn. still in beta. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion, not yet notable Pedant 2005 July 5 18:58 (UTC)
Delete - for above reasons.--Bhadani 7 July 2005 18:01 (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. – AB CD 17:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton d'souza[edit]

Non-notable--same content and anon contributor as December 13 1979, Vfd'd above. Only one hit for "Clifton d'souza", which may or may not be this person. Niteowlneils 5 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Delete vanity and ALL CAPS. Jaxl 5 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
Delete Econrad 5 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Delete Not notable/vanity and written in a self-aggrandizing pov. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
Delete as noted above. --Habap 5 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
(Speedily deletable under Proposal 1? No. Article "asserts importance" by asserting that the subject is the "GREATEST PHILANTHROPIST,LEADER,SOCIALIST AND NOBLE MEN OF THE NEW WORLD". Speedily deletable under Proposal 2? Yes. Subject is 25 right now and article cites no sources of any kind.) The article doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, and a search turns up exactly 2 Cliftons d'Souza, neither of whom appear to be this person. Delete. Uncle G 5 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
Comment - So, if it had been 1978 instead of 1979, that difference would have made this unspeediable? -- Jonel | Speak 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
Delete I think this should have been speedied Pedant 2005 July 5 19:01 (UTC)
How about speedy delete as a joke, since we all know that the subject is not, in fact, the "GREATEST PHILANTHROPIST,LEADER,SOCIALIST AND NOBLE MEN OF THE NEW WORLD"? -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Delete vanity/nonsensical shouting, make it stop. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone have the balls to do a speedy delete here? -R. fiend 8 July 2005 05:05 (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. – AB CD 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fires-of-sol[edit]

Not notable/vanity -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Delete, nn ad. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
Delete, nn, web page not reachable, virtually empty discussion board. - Marcika 5 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion, poorly written, non-notable. If we ever do need to have an article on FOS, then this wouldn't even be very usable as a stublet, better to scrap it and build from scratch. Pedant 2005 July 5 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 17:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Midgets/No Pants Today[edit]

Why was this even created?! Bobbis 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Delete; looks like some sort of dicdef at best. Jaxl 5 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
Delete. Substub lacking context and potential. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
Delete. No context, no references, not really any information. I am more ignorant now then before I read it. Pedant 2005 July 5 19:05 (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 content. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

Relic Forums[edit]

I can't see this ever being more than an advert Bobbis 5 July 2005 00:28 (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. – AB CD 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Path[edit]

not the right place for this info. maybe wikinews... Delete. THE KING 12:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see this was listed a long time ago. Right now it is useless so Delete unless a rewrite of the article is done. Falphin 5 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
Delete. The title and article don't seem to match; the news is old, anyway. Jaxl 5 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
Merge the scant information to appropriate article and redirect. 'A simple path' is a phrase with some relevance to the Tibetan government-in-exile. Pedant 2005 July 5 19:08 (UTC)
- Its also a book by the current Dalai Lama. Falphin 5 July 2005 23:41 (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 (with a comment after the fact as to the appropriateness of speedy-deletion).

Megan dodge[edit]

Vanity. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 5 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
Article was deleted while on VfD not good. (null vote) Pedant 2005 July 5 19:10 (UTC)
Comment: It was deleted at 20:43 on 4 July 2005 by Craigy144 who described it as "patent nonsense". I do not agree that this article qualified as patent nonsense in the very strict way we use that term but this is very clearly a deletable non-article. Disputes on Craigy144's decision should be taken up at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. In the meantime, I am closing this discussion. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:44 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson Guitarist[edit]

Non-notable musician wannabe. From the article: "The Genre of the band is undesided [sic]." Zero hits for morg "Jack Johnson" "jonny Spencer". Niteowlneils 5 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable musician for band which doesn't seem to meet Wikimusic project guidelines. Possible redirect to Jack Johnson (musician). Capitalistroadster 5 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
Delete non notable wannabe. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable member of possible potential future band. Not worth a redirect to the notable singer-songwriter of the same name. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
Delete vanity/not notable. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)
Idea: perhaps just redirect this to Jack Johnson (musician) to ensure the anon doesn't recreate this page. The artice cited is about a huge rockstar named Jack Johnson who plays guitar. If this idea sounds stupid to other editors, then just delete. Harro5 July 5, 2005 11:58 (UTC)
Redirect to Jack Johnson (musician), as there is a Jack Johnson, who is a guitarist. If the band ever gets famous enough for someone to notice them, I'm sure they will change their name to prevent confusion with Azazello, who recently changed their name from Morg... and at that point I'm sure someone who is not in the band will write a very good well-spelled article about the band, maybe even separate articles for the band members. Pedant 2005 July 5 19:21 (UTC)
Redirect per Harro5, Pedant. Fun. Cheap. Redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:10 (UTC)
Redirect and make note to self that "black metal, death metal ,and thrash metal" are separate musical styles. Learn something every day. --Habap 5 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Delete teen rocker vanity. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
Delete and I don't feel like creating a redirect just because of a vanity page. --IByte 5 July 2005 23:34 (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. – AB CD 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Islam[edit]

Article is solely for pushing the POV of a known and previously banned troll and vandal and substantive material is best dealt with on the Islam and related pages. --TJive July 5, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

Delete, offensive and sad. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
Delete. Hopelessly POV. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Delete. enough said. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
Delete, some people may justify killing in the name of Islam that way, but it's hopelessly POV to think all of Islam believers think of this as justifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:08 (UTC)
Delete. What everyone else said. This is just an anti-Muslim diatribe. One could just as easily write an anti-Christianity piece listing every time in the Bible God slaughters people or endorses doing so. Frederick R July 5, 2005
Merge or make subarticle of Islam article. Specific references to ideology are important. Here it lacks context and I don't understand what works are being quoted. -- DavidH July 5, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Merge some portions with Islam#The Qur.27an and add balancing text showing that the Islamic faith doesn't support murder, if available. Out of context this cannot achieve NPOV. Without context and without commentary this is of little value to an Encyclopedia. Pedant 2005 July 5 19:30 (UTC)

Delete. Irreparably POV, no point is served by merging this anywhere. Bear in mind, as Frederick R has pointed out, the same kind of article could be written about Christians (or Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, communists, capitalists, etc.). How far, exactly, should we push that door ajar? -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
Strong Keep The subject of murder and violence in the islamic faith and sharia law is apmly documented in the hadith and historical record. This is an encyclopedic topic even if it does make many people uncomfortable. Analgous articles on the treatment of murder in other religions are also appropriate. Klonimus 6 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)
Delete, POV title. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:28 (UTC)
Delete. Ridiculous collection of out-of-context quotes. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
An article on religious perspectives on murder might be worthwhile. This ain't it. Delete. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:43 (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 delete. – AB CD 18:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzwana Bashir[edit]

DELETE - This person is not remotely notable and thus this is certainly not an encyclopaedic article. There are 3 Oxford Union presidents elected every year, and have done so for the last 160+ years - but the other 500 ex-presidents do not have Wikipedia entries, only the most notable ones such as ex-Prime Ministers. Ms Bashir is certainly not notable - being the first Asian (Tariq Ali), first Asian female (Benazir Bhutto, first British-born Asian (Neil Mahapatra) may indeed be notable, but being the a) first b) British-born c) Asian d) female to be e) Oxford Union president is certainly not notable. The investigation into breaking election rules certainly does not make this notable either as there are disciplinary tribunals almost every single term now (see http://union.ars-retae.com). Putting her through a search engine, the majority of entries are copies of the Wikipedia entry. She has done nothing notable - every president (3 elected per year) is quoted in newspapers. She is now an ordinary 22-year-old student once again doing her third year of a degree along with another 10,000 undergraduates at Oxford! - Bajocbi 5 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Comment: being the first British-born Asian female to be the president of some society would be notable, depending on how notable the society is. It was founded in 1823, has had some very prominent members, and is successful in world championships, so it seems notable to me. I'd also like to note that Bajocbi is a self-described current student with an interest in the Oxford Union, so s/he may have an axe to grind with regard to this person. --bainer (talk) 5 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)
- After reading the history and noting that the article mentions school disciplinary action against Ms. Bashir, and that Ms. Bashir apparently wants it deleted... I would think that if there were ax-grinders, it'd be the keepers, rather than the deleters. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
- Reply - The first Asian Oxford Union president was Tariq Ali - that is notable. The first Asian female Oxford Union president was Benazir Bhutto - that is notable. The first British-born Asian Oxford Union president was Neil Mahapatra - not very notable. The first British-born Asian female really is not notable though, it sounds comical, virtually anyone can be the 'first' something if they have three/four conditions. As a current student who knows the person in question I know for a fact that she is not remotely notable as an encyclopaedic entry! Bajocbi 5 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Why do you think that the first Asian female president is clearly notable, but the first British-born Asian female president is clearly non-notable? Those both sound like good qualifications to me. Factitious July 5, 2005 06:50 (UTC)
    - Because it is in the eyes of most an achievement to be, say, the first (a) Asian, (b) female president, two conditions, but three conditions, first (a) British-born, (b) Asian, (c) female goes too far. My point is that almost any individual can hold a 'claim to fame' if they have three conditions like this - the president-elect is the first Indian female president, the current president is the first state-school gay president etc etc. Bajocbi 5 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
    - Delete, presidents of campus organizations are rarely notable per se. As I see it, since an Asian woman became president of the Oxford Union before Ms. Bashir was born, then her becoming president of the Oxford Union as a British-born Asian woman didn't reflect a significant victory over discrimination; there's no reason to think that anyone at a British university would be prejudiced against British-born people. --Metropolitan90 July 6, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Comment: This page was on vfd before. The old discussions can be found through the history here. HollyAm 5 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Delete, this person is not notable. The proliferation of other non notable presidents of the Oxford Union Richard Tydeman (Laura Poots was voted to delete in December) is also not useful for Wikipedia.--nixie 5 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

Keep. Seems NPOV and verifiable. Notability isn't grounds for deletion, especially since the information can be checked. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
- Comment - NPOVness and verifiability are not valid reasons for an article existing. Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser with this whole Oxford Union saga, but anyway, Delete, not notable (or if you prefer, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives" / "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement.") Dcarrano July 5, 2005 03:30 (UTC)
- There's nothing in there about being fondly remembered by friends and relatives, so I'm not sure how that quote applies. Factitious July 5, 2005 06:50 (UTC)
  - Point being, the person has to acquire a certain level of fame beyond their immediate circle that I don't think this person has. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 07:01 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
Delete. Student politics are not especially notable, for reasons explained by the nominator. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
Delete not notable. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)
Keep. She's notable, and has survived VfD twice before. Let's move on. Factitious July 5, 2005 06:50 (UTC)
Keep. We've been through this already. Let's accept the decision and get on with our lives. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)
Delete, good lord, she is a wannabe and a nobody. Trezures 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
Delete Should have been deleted last time. Many of the keep votes were on principle (as the second nomination was considered too soon after the first) Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)
Delete. I don't care that much if it stays, but being the first UK-born asian female president of a debating society for a single year doesn't reflect sufficient notability to me. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
- Actually she was president for a mere 9 weeks lol. There are 3 presidents each year, one for each term, and each academic term is only 2 months long (including "0th Week"). Bajocbi 5 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Delete insufficiently notable. -Splash 5 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
delete self aggrandizement --Isolani 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
Delete. College politics, no other notability. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
Delete. 62.254.64.14 5 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
Merge with Oxford Union and redirect, within the Oxford Union article there is some justification for having any president. That should satisfy everyone, and I think it's a good way to avoid continually voting this article on VfD.Pedant 2005 July 5 19:41 (UTC)
If there is nothing more to say about this person, delete. It's had ample time for expansion since the last vote and nothing has been added. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
Comment: Please do NOT overwrite the prior deletion decisions when re-nominating an article. Instead, you must manually edit the various links to using the format [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. I am restoring the archived versions now. The prior discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (2nd nomination) respectively. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
- OK sorry I didn't know. Anyway the vote now stands at 14 Delete, 3 Keep, 1 Merge so it should be deleted soon. Bajocbi 6 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
Delete. 15 delete, 3 keep, 1 merge (if ~~Jeff Probst's~~ User:Bajocbi's totals were correct (I didn't check). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 08:21 (UTC)
Delete. Grue 6 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO standards. Quale 7 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Qwghlm July 8, 2005 11:07 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Chan[edit]

Notability not established, and given that the subject is a kid about to enter college, it doesn't seem likely there is any. Scanning the initial hits for the name, none jump out as being particularly notable, either. Niteowlneils 5 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

Delete - Vanity. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
Delete teen vanity. Jaxl 5 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --bainer (talk) 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
Delete on the grounds of lack of verifiability. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)
Delete vanity. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
Delete just a kid, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
Delete. The usual sort of vanity crap. jni 7 July 2005 12:00 (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). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Radin[edit]

The page for Dean Radin was created by Dean Radin himself, and he has "copyrighted" the page to himself, as evidenced on Talk:Dean_Radin page! So, he's done an Autobiography, which is generally frowned upon here, and upended the Wikipedia copyright policies by placing his own copyright on this article. Two violoations of Wikipedia policy in one. Thanks for your attention. I vote for deletion. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:48 (UTC)\

Delete - Vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Jaxl 5 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
Userfy. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity: the edit summary for the first edit even says it's an autobio. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
Weak Delete, seems relatively NPOV. The only problem is verifiability, which can be provided with evidence of verifiability and a degree of impact, then I will change my vote. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
Comment - the copyright notice isn't invalid. Submitters always retain copyright, they just agree to license their work under the GFDL. In fact, he did exactly what he's supposed to: letting us know that this isn't a copyvio of the text on his website, since he's the copyright holder and therefore is allowed to copy it into Wikipedia. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
- Reply to comment - Apoliogies if that is true. And, if true, then the only remaining problem is with the policy on autobiographies/vanity edits. Can you, or someone else, please provide a link to where that "submitters retain copyright" policy is spelled out? Thanks. ---- (Unsigned comment by NightMonkey)
  - Reply to comment Please see Contributors' rights and obligations. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
    - Nevertheless, I dropped a note on the discussion page pointing out that the fine print on the bottom of the editing page states "All contributions to any page on Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License", and that it remains a highly questionable matter whether, having thus submitted this information, any enforceable copyright interest can be retained in it. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:30 (UTC)
Delete not notable. vanity. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Grudging keep - Yes, it's an autobio, which is bad. However, he has had a book published by HarperCollins, has press coverage in the Las Vegas Sun, and gets about 11k Google hits, which all look relevant. -- Jonel | Speak 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
Keep. Ranks #8,872 on Amazon. A pretty high number compared to some we see. Seems notable. Info is from his website, but he is the author, so if he puts it here he is releasing it. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Keep. Generally I would prefer to see someone other than the subject himself start a biographical article but once the article exists, I think the same notability standards should apply without regard to how the article began. Here, I think he is notable and the informations is verifiable, so i would keep the article. DS1953 5 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
Keep. I'm voting because I'm an end user who hoped there would be an entry for him on Wikipedia. I saw several references to him in some consciousness studies literature, and looked him up to get a better idea of who he is. So he is notable enough that a Dean Radin entry could be more than a vanity entry. If this is deemed a vanity entry just because it's an autobio, keep it unless there's something comparable written by a 3rd party. stripmind 5 July 2005
- Welcome to wikipedia, Stripmind Pedant
Keep, as this person is somewhat notable, passes my Bajoran wormhole test. Wikipolicy doesn't preclude notable persons from writing NPOV articles on themself. Adding more info to this should be easily done, as we can contact the Radin if there is something on his website we'd like to use, and he's likely to allow it. It's not customary to write about oneself but about 1 in 3 wikipedians who commented [1] on the subject oppose any rule against writing about oneself, and there is in fact, no such rule that I am aware of at this point. I think that [[Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies|these criteria}] should apply to this article, and those criteria suggest that [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics|these criteria] specifically apply to academics, as an alternate to notability criteria applied to more mainstream folk. Pedant 2005 July 5 20:04 (UTC)
- Comment: Which criteria at [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics are you using? The heavily disputed proposal at the top of the page, the more restrictive proposal in the middle of the page or MarSch's very simple but even high standard that tossed into the middle of the discussion? Rossami (talk)
Keep as per Stripmind's comments - FabioB 5 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
Move to his userpage if he wants it but delete from the main article space. Based on the available evidence, he is an average academic. A business person with similar experience, exposure and credentials would not generally get an article. (One published book is not, in my opinion, enough to tip the scales to inclusion.) I'll also note that while some did oppose a strict rule against autobiographies, a strong majority supported it. It's not an absolute rule but it's a useful guideline that we should break only as a rare exception. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
- Comment - moving the text is a good suggestion, but he apparently doesn't have a user page - he added and edited the article's talk page as an anonymous user :( . --NightMonkey July 7, 2005 09:33 (UTC)
Keep. Although an autobio, seems sufficiently notable per the evidence above. A few parapsychology Wikipedia articles link to the page, suggesting that he is known to others who know about the subject. HollyAm 6 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Some notability. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
Delete content, list on requested articles R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:29 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. RoySmith 6 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
Keep. --Arcadian 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. CDC (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and self-promo. Gamaliel 23:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeploaders[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Forum-specific neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Delete neologism. Jaxl 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Merge with Free Republic where it is specific to. --Shaddack 5 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
Delete non-verifiable neologism. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
I merged it into the Free Republic article, made a section for the site-specific neologisms. Their terminology is interesting. --Shaddack 5 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Fuzzypony 5 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
Delete the terminology may be interesting, but it is still a narrowly used neologism. -Splash 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Merge, as was already done by User:Shaddack, and redirect. We don't need a whole article for this. Pedant 2005 July 5 20:07 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge with Tusken Raiders. For the record the vote count is 6d, 6k, 6m. Given the brevity of this article, I will call this a merge, although that does not mean that it cannot be split out to a longer separate article later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Tusken[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Star Wars "Expanded Universe" fancruft. — Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Extremely Weak Keep. Might actually be rather significant for the Expanded Universe category, but I'm not so sure it is. Whether "fancruft" is a criteria for deletion or not is also debatable. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable to Star Wars fans. Kappa 5 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
- And only them, which makes it fancruft. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 03:38 (UTC)
Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Keep. Notable starwarscruft and if we're going to have every pokemon and geographical feature from LotR, we might as well let these stand. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
Delete fancruft. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
Merge into Tusken Raiders. Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:10 (UTC)
Merge This is non-notable fancruft, agreed, and there's no reason for an article, but it's a worthy footnote for another article I suppose. -Harmil 5 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
Weakest...keep...ever This is from Star Wars Galaxies, which (if memory serves) is in the lowest grade of SW canon. If merged, merge with Tatooine, not Tusken Raiders, since it's a geographic article. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm. -- Jonel | Speak 5 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)
Merge per Mgm. Early SWG location. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
Merge, (with both Tatooine and Tusken Raiders as appropriate. Subject matter does not pass Bajoran wormhole test... or at least not by much. Article does not have enough source material to draw on to make a full paragraph of encyclopedic stature. Not known outside of fandom. Not an internet meme or similar cultural influence. No mainstream expressions referring to the subject (such as "Gritty as Fort Tusken" or the like). fancruft/mathcruft, etc. not valid criteria for deletion. Sherlock Holmes brother Mycroft is fancruft and we have Mycroft Holmes Pedant 2005 July 5 20:32 (UTC)
Merge as per Mgm. 69.12.131.148 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC) Sorry, this was me...Sabine's Sunbird 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
Keep provided a stub notice is added. Should also reference Star Wars Galaxies which is where Fort Tusken is most notable. -Husnock 6 July 2005 07:29 (UTC)
Delete. I'm actually a big fan of fancruft, but this is ridiculous. Send the death star after this article. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as canon or fancruft. SchmuckyTheCat 7 July 2005 03:05 (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. – AB CD 18:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tydeman[edit]

President of the Oxford student union, I don't think being the head of any student organisation warrants a mention, delete--nixie 5 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability - if this person merits an article, than certainly so do I (and I know I don't). -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 02:51 (UTC)
Delete - Mr Tydeman is as non-notable as Ruzwana Bashir. Bajocbi 5 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
Delete - unless verifiability can be provided. Then I will change my vote. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
- I can verify his Presidency - http://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/modules/standard/viewpage.asp?id=523 - but that still doesn't make this remotely worthy of inclusion here. Bajocbi 5 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Delete non notable as above. -Splash 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
these need to be merged with Oxford Union and if the editors who feel qualified to edit Oxford Union feel it's appropriate, the entries can be pruned down to nothing. Or expanded to full articles and broken out. Pedant 2005 July 5 20:28 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth merging. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
Comment Highly likely to be back one day. A high proportion of Presidents of the Oxford Union achieve prominence. The category:Presidents of the Oxford Union contains 49 articles already. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Drunkeness. – AB CD 18:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blind drunk[edit]

unencylopedic, this article contributes nothing. We already have drunkenness. I think "blind drunk" is just a particular term for extreme intoxication, rather than a specific literal condition of blindness as the article suggests. Friday 5 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Already seems deleted? -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide. I've fixed this entry, it now links to the correct page. Graham 5 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't really explain anything. Redundant, at best. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
Redirect. Could probably be redirected to drunkenness Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 06:36 (UTC)
Merge. Why not slot this into Drunkenness as a 'state of...', or is that too facetious? Excession 5 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
Delete or I will have to create articles for all the various vernacular terms for being drunk... how about rat-arsed? ;) --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
Delete This is a dictionary definition. Let the author re-write for WD -Harmil 5 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
Redirect to drunkeness. Something people might stumble here for. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Redirect to drunkeness, per Wikibofh. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. Slang terms are not encyclopedic even if gussied up with pseudoscientific definitions. (As an aside, how did this article possible survive in this state since 2001?) Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
Redirect to Drunkeness. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
Redirect to Drunkeness. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:41 (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. – AB CD 18:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbon society[edit]

Non-notable school club. Delete. Mark ¹ 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

Delete - unless verifiability can be provided. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Comment Verfiable via school site. Whether this makes it notable is another matter. Merge a mention of society's existence to Edward Gibbon and delete. Hiding 5 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
Delete nn school club. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)
Delete. nn. school thing. jni 7 July 2005 12:01 (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. – AB CD 18:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oappy[edit]

Vanity article about an 11-yr-old self-proclaimed rock star. Obviously, this meets no criteria on WP:MUSIC, and should be deleted. Harro5 July 5, 2005 03:08 (UTC)

Delete vanity silliness. Friday 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
BJAODN. Was rather funny to read, actually. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

I've added the contents of the article to BJAODN, but still feel the article itself should go. Not to mention we should send a message to the anon author, who has removed the VfD tag four times. Harro5 July 5, 2005 06:31 (UTC)

Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
Delete not notable and vanity. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)
Delete, good that it's on BJAODN. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 5 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
Delete as patent nonsense. His birthday doesn't even exist. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:12 (UTC)
Delete ... wait, Grodember 32nd doesn't exist?! Proto t c 5 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
Delete as a joke. BJAODN is the only place this entry belongs. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
Delete kid vanity nonsense. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense posted by a known vandal. Nothing but similar BS spewing out of this IP. - Lucky 6.9 6 July 2005 00:57 (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 as a disambig --Allen3 ^talk 13:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noor[edit]

WP:WINAD. "Arabic [word] meaning light." Delete all foreign language dicdefs. Dmcdevit 5 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
Merge. Salvage the comment about the cognates in Arabic and Hebrew and incorporate into the "Common vocabulary" section of Semitic languages.--Defrosted 5 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)
Delete "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"... and especially not a foreign language dictionary. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
Delete dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:14 (UTC)
Redirect to Noor of Jordan, since out of the a bunch of articles for people whose names contain Noor (Noor Jehan, Noor Hassanali, etc.), she seems to be the one who the word's most pivotal in the name. If need be, we can put together a disambig for all people named Noor, though I have doubts as to that ever being needed. The Literate Engineer 5 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
- Keep as a disambig as per [[user:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412], no redirect to any particular Noor. Yes, a change of vote. The Literate Engineer 5 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
Redirect per above, delete current content.--Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)
Redirect to "Noor of Jordan". Dusik 5 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
KEEP and turn into disambig, turn this into a disambiguation page for people known as Noor. 132.205.45.110 5 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig - 864,000 Google hits includes place names [2], [3], likelihood of future disambig growth. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
Redirect to Noor of Jordan, which already mentions what it means (They do speak Arabic in Jordan). I don't think a disambig page is necessary for the other Noors (as it's not their main name), unless someone actually wants to make a page on a place called that right now, but I'm not happy about the idea of proactive disambig pages (to reiterate, I think there would be only one entry that should legitimately go on there). --IByte 6 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
Keep as a disambig per BD2412. Xoloz 6 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
{{disambig}} per [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412], keeping explanation of the name's meaning. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 08:22 (UTC)
If memory serves, a noor was also a race of aliens in SF novels series by David Brin, if that helps disambiguate anything. From above, i assume the arabic meaning is where he got it.Sandpiper 02:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted (external link was only content). jni 7 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Wannabe Fansubs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a Web directory. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 5, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Delete nn website Friday 5 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Doesn't say anything other than a link. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:32 (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 BJAODN. – AB CD 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toe names[edit]

I'd say this is vanity. --Salleman 5 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

BJAODN. Dude... have you ever looked at your foot... I mean... really looked at it? Dcarrano July 5, 2005 03:40 (UTC)
BJAODN. I admit it. I chuckled. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
Comment funnily enough "Index toe" gets over 550 Google hits [4] and also [5], so calling them the same as fingers is not that rare. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
BJAODN I don't laugh much at vanity like this but I have to admit this made even me laugh. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 06:37 (UTC)
BJAODN I call my toes Samuel, Godfrey, Luther, Yojimbo, Carlos, Rupert, Donald, Jefferson, Simba and Lenin. Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
- ...and I call my hands Mary-Kate and Ashley. Or was that too much info? nvm. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  - TMI... indeed so. Nevertheless, Weak BJAODN -- I didn't find it particularly funny, but others do, so who am I to go against consensus? Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
Delete Denni ☯ 2005 July 5 18:18 (UTC)
BJAODN indeed: It's not encyclopedic, but there's something about the concept that made me smile :) --IByte 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
BJAODN I agree. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) July 6, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
BJAODN, definately. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
Keep, I think if someone wrote a little more it'd be worth keeping Cynj 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
keep, i thought it was pretty good, and it was quite funny, in a good way63.225.153.163 7 July 2005 00:49 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

List of music groups whose songs have been used in advertising[edit]

Annnnnnnnnnnd it's back, less than two weeks after failing VFD. I'm not sure if we can speedy this, though. DS 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to users of Mozilla Firefox: If you have the Adblock extension installed, you will need to disable it to edit this VfD. -Splash 01:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can we protect it against being recreated? Since the page creator obviously didn't get the hint. DS 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to protect I think. Just make sure to remove the link from Selling out after this is deleted again, as I'm sure this was recreated from that link. The content was originally in Selling out, so actually I was the original creator of the article at this title. Isomorphic 05:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy if this is significantly similar to the previous article, Delete otherwise. android 79 21:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
delete as previously. It isn't similar enough for speedy though (different layout and different set of songs listed). Thryduulf 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. -Splash 01:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. Grue 06:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again - my arguments (see below) have not changed - Skysmith 10:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Edit-War-of-VfD started? -DePiep 10:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously. JamesBurns 04:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music groups whose songs have been used in advertising[edit]

This list is rather pointless since it could never be comprehensive, and it implies a POV just by existing. The material was moved from selling out, where it also caused a POV problem, but it really isn't needed at all. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

Delete. Non-comprehensive, not really valuable even if we managed to list them all...-- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
Delete, totally unmaintainable. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 05:44 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
Delete, there have been some songs that shot to prominence through being in ads but not the place for it. Excession 5 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
Delete, all reasons mentioned above DePiep 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
Delete. --Conti|✉ July 5, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Keep - if limited to notable instances of notable songs by notable groups used in notable ad campaigns (which the list currently seems to comprise). I could see someone using this to find out, for example, the name of that catchy Sting tune from that sleek Jaguar commercial. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
Delete - unmaintainable list, because advertisers use recognizable tunes for nostalgia value and various other reasons. This list would expand every time some agency uses some tune in in a commercial. Every advertising agency regard their own campaigns as noticeable - and would be in position to include themselves into WP, of course. If this were, say, list of music groups or composers that compose music exclusively for advertising, it would make sense - Skysmith 6 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
Keep per BD2412. Grue 6 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:30 (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 keep redirect. – AB CD 18:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian I[edit]

This is the first in a series of seemingly nonsense articles written by Mrdie. Google searches turned up nothing on Sebastians I, II, and III as well as Maade II and the content in all of them seems rather silly. The Grza July 5, 2005 04:10 (UTC)

Delete This is also a furtive vandal that inserts nonsense into genuine articles. --Wetman 5 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Delete --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
Delete admitted vandalism -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
Comment. Further debate irrelevant - the article has been reverted to its original state: a redirect to a real Sebastian. -- RHaworth 2005 July 6 01:32 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. As a process comment, please double-check the pagehistory before nominating a nonsense article for deletion. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
Delete hoax/nonsense. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
Keep redirect. The page, originally a redirect to another article was vandalised by User:Mrdie and I've restored it to its original state and protected. I speedied the other nonsense articles and blocked Mrdie's user indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 13:24 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be 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 on 5 July by user:Tony Sidaway. Closing the discussion.

Sebastian II[edit]

This is the second in a series of nonsense articles written by Mrdie. The Grza July 5, 2005 04:10 (UTC)

Delete This is also a furtive vandal that inserts nonsense into genuine articles. --Wetman 5 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
Delete --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
Delete admited vandalism -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:09 (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 speedy deleted on 5 July by user:Tony Sidaway. Closing the discussion.

Sebastian III[edit]

This is the third in a series of nonsense articles written by Mrdie.The Grza July 5, 2005 04:12 (UTC)

Delete This is also a furtive vandal that inserts nonsense into genuine articles. --Wetman 5 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
Delete --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
Delete User appears to be a vandal, and has made an indication that he admits that this is vandalism (though note that he's being unfairly reverted in one recent case). I would consider this grounds for Speedy -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:07 (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 speedy deleted on 5 July by user:Tony Sidaway. Closing the discussion.

Maade II[edit]

This is the fourth in a series of nonsense articles written by Mrdie. The Grza July 5, 2005 04:09 (UTC)

Bravo. - Mrdie

Delete. --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't suppose we can take the above edit by Mrdie as a request, and thus grounds for a Speedy delete? -Harmil 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
Speedy delete given editor request. (It's a stretch, c'mon, back me up here...) --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:40 (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 and cleanup. – AB CD 18:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spherical decay experiment[edit]

There is a problem with the ability of inexperienced persons interested in science introducing ostensible paradox after paradox (the oldest probably being the twin paradox in relativity). The result is that these fanciful "puzzles" sit and await criticism by better-versed physicists, as well as spreading like the so-called urban legends. This "puzzle" has no merit, as there is no way to say when the atom decays, so there is no way to say when the inner hemisphere has been passed up. Pdn 5 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't it be better to edit the article to demonstrate/explain how the paradox is resolved/not a paradox? GBM 5 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)
Weak keep Is this notable or not? If it is a well-known thought experiment, then it should be kept with notes in the body of the article. If this was made up for Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. Google was inconclusive on this point, and may not be a good source for notable QM theory. Someone with credentials or at least a decent source citation want to comment? -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This is a famous paradox first formulated by the mainstream physics community in the 1920's and 1930's and is a standard part of undergraduate quantum mechanics education. The entire business of experimental high-energy physics is built upon this effect. This is a nuisance delete aka VfD vandalism. linas 5 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll take the next 24/48 hours to expand the article to bring it closer to a standard presentation. I'll try to find references; I'm not sure, but I think its Max Born who came up with this. linas 5 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

The text appears reasonable. It would be useful if it actually cited a source for the gedanken experiment. But I don't see anything inherently irregular about it. It helps capture some of the inherent wierdness of quantum mechanics. Keep — RJH 5 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
Comment A Google search for Spherical decay experiment returns 168,000; however, a Google search for the same with quotes returns two, both from Wikipedia. Perhaps there's a better name for the article? Does the experiment actually have an actual name? BorgHunter July 5, 2005 21:39 (UTC)
Weak Keep: This is a known thought experiment, but the article is unclear. It should avoid wavefunction collapse since that is a philosophical construct, not an observable. (The state of a system between measurements is not part of quantum mechanics or any other science.) Peter Grey 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup Problems with article quality are not grounds for deletion of a valid topic. Xoloz 6 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
~~Is this original research?~~ There is no mention of a paradox of this name in any of the quantum mechanics books in our library, nor do any of my colleagues seem to recognize this name. Furthermore, as currently written, the nature of the paradox is obscure, as pointed out by the nominator. Before calling for a delete I would ask the editor to cleanup at least in the following ways:
- Give references to prove that the effect has been described and named before.
- Early in the article state exactly what the paradox is.

Maybe the editor would actualy like to add an example to the article on wavefunction collapse instead? Bambaiah July 8, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Bambaiah, a better name can be found for this article, I am not yet sure of what that better name would be. The first part, about the collapse of a spherical wave function to a single trace in a cloud chamber, is due, I believe to either Wilson, the inventor of the cloud chamber, or one of his contemporaries, maybe Bohr, presumably in the 1920's. The "paradox" is obvious: how does the spherical wave function of a decaying nucleus turn into a straight ray in a cloud chamber? I will try to change the article to state this in an even more straightforward manner. I'm trying to find a reference; as that will then provide the correct name under which this is more commonly known under. You and I have had arguments in the past, and I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence, but lashing back out with language such as "Is this original research?" is inappropriate and out-of-line. linas 06:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the magic of google. A breif search shows that it is known as the Mott problem, formulated by Mott in 1929. I added refs to the article. The only things I found on-line that mention it are to far off-topic to cite:

Andrew Platt, Ken Kiers, Wytse van Dijk, Numerical Simulations of Alpha Tracks (appears to be a student project guided by a professor)

Mario Castagnino1 and Roberto Laura, Functional Approach to Quantum Decoherence and the Classical Final Limit: The Mott and Cosmological Problems, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39 no 7 pp 1737-1765. [6]

J.J. Halliwell, Trajectories for the Wave Function of the Universe from a Simple Detector Model, (2001) Phys Rev D 64 pp 044008.

Appearently, astrophysicists enjoy looking at this problem. -- linas 16:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the language bothered you, I struck it out, and I hereby take it back. The revisions are nice. Maybe one could think of a name change? I mean this purely as a practical matter: since the effect that is being talked about is not usually known by the name that it has been given, people are unlikely to look for it in a pedia by this phrase. An appropriate name change would make it more useful. And my vote is now a keep. (Or should that be a move or redirect?) Bambaiah 09:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seems clear to me now that the right thing is to split the article into two: the Mott problem and the Renninger negative-result experiment. Curiously, we have no articles on the better-known Mott scattering and Renninger effect. Oh well. linas 14:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A while now since I went to QM lectures. On a read through and look at the references it says the right kind of things and is interesting. Its most ardent supporter was also the guy who wrote it, and as yet I could not be certain it is not a spoof as suggested by others. But it is important that this subject be addressed by wiki. It is correctly stating that this is an important class of issue for people to think about, even if they do not know it. Don't know what other related articles exist. If there are some then it might be merged, otherwise it is a must keep.Sandpiper 02:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has been revised, but doesn't it say the half life of the particle being studied is short enough that it must have decayed during the time of the experiment. It is sufficient to know it has almost certainly decayed without knowing exactly when.user:sandpiper

The most ardent supporter has a PhD in theoretical particle physics and feels that he knows what he's talking about, and has spent some time trying to fight off crank physics edits on wikipedia. This article was created in order to document one of the half-dozen classic pozers on quantum measurement. linas 06:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well who knows, perhaps we went to the same lectures, the number of physics graduates is going down. I was happy enough to remember who EPR were before it said.Sandpiper 17:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found an online reference for the second half of the article; its a reprint of an older journal article: here, see section 4.1 I am still missing names and references for the first half. linas 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appearently, the thing described in the first half is known as the Mott problem; see cites above. I've added a full set of Cites to the article (but not the cites above, which are off-topic).linas 16:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted already. Woohookitty 08:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poppykettle[edit]

Correctly listing a VfD nomination originally submitted by JonathanZ. No vote from myself. -- Longhair | Talk 5 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

BJAODN. Hilarious nonsense. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
Cleanup to clarify that this is fiction rather than fact; then redirect to The Poppykettle Papers, a little-known book whose contents can surely be summarized in an article devoted to it. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 05:38 (UTC)
Comment possible copyright violation, as now noted on article page. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of whether or not this is a copyright violation, it is a verbatim copy of a story written by an author. It is not notable. "Wikipedia articles are not... Mere collections of public domain or other source materials". -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. I wondered why one of the Twelve Apostles collapsed off Victoria recently.. those Incan gnomes looking for their brass keys. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
Neutral. This is a copyvio, and will be deleted anyway, but the book is notable - and is by a quite notable author. It even has a festival dedicated to it in my hometown, which I remember going to when I was a child. Ambi 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
Redirect I've created a new, non-copyvio stub at The Poppykettle Papers. Enjoy. -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

I was going to wait until this VfD was over, but, seeing as it is (being a {{copyvio}}), I'm afraid I'm going to nominate that for VfD too. No insult intended, I just don't think the book is worth an article either. You can oppose me here.-Splash 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

No offense taken. If we had the resources, I'd be all for every new article going up for a vote. -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:04 (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 keep as redirect.

I found nothing to merge into the current target article. If someone does see content worth merging, please recover it from the page history.

Comment: May I again urge all participants in these discussions to remain civil and as fact-based as possible. This was a relatively straightforward decision which got badly derailed by the use of inflammatory language. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Christian-Islamic[edit]

This is a neo-logism. A quick Google search elicits 10,300 instances, compared with almost 800,000 for Judeo-Christian. Also note that several of the former entries are Wikipedias, Islamic apologist sites, and news sites. Of those 10,300, 10,200 come from the past year. My suspicion, although it's virtually impossible to prove, is that this is PC garbage to convince people to be more "tolerant" toward Islam (see Newspeak). In addition, the phrase itself is basically self-contradictory, as Islam has further inspired the creation of Sikhism and Bahia, so if one is being logically consistent, it would be "Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Sikh-Bahai" if I follow the reasoning. Justin (koavf) July 5, 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Don't really agree with nominator's arguments; 10,300 is not a bad Google total at all, and the "PC garbage"/"Newspeak" stuff is melodramatic. Nonetheless, delete as dicdef since the article doesn't go beyond simply defining the term. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
Redirect to Abrahamic religion. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 5 06:44 (UTC)
Keep if author expands article. By the way, I think language like "PC garbage" and "Islamic apologist" has no place in deletion nominations. If it's deleted--- which I hope it's not; as pointed out above, 10,300 is not at all a bad Google total--- I hope it's on more neutral and appropriate grounds.Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
This has been a significant idea and term in ecumenical discussion in recent years; with a bit more heft and context I would probably vote to keep. As it stands, I say merge (not just redirect) to Abrahamic religion.--Pharos 5 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
Merge into Abrahamic religion. I also believe that the nomination is less than professional and hope that we can all refrain from that kind of language in the future. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)
Merge into Abrahamic religion and redirect. Abrasive comments in the nomination are rather unnecessary at best - Skysmith 5 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
Merge as per Pharos. --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. It's good that tolerance of Islam is still regarded as PC garbage. It would be horrid if people became "tolerant" to all religions, wouldn't it? --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
- Comment: Generating tolerance of Islam, regardless of the merits of that, is surely rather foolish when it undermines intellectual clarity. "Judeo-Christian" is usually used to refer to the tradition that supports and influenced Western morality and law. The influence of Islam in this sphere is minor. I'm all for increased tolerance of Islam, but I don't think we should get that by rewriting history to imagine that the Western Judeo-Christian system carries an equal influence from Islam. However, the fact that this term is PC garbage is irrelevant to this discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 5 18:22 (UTC)
  - Actually, you are really quite wrong there. Islam is the only reason we still have many classical texts, such as Plato's republic, and the Elements. Algebra is named after Al-Jabr, and Algorithm is named after Al-Khwarizmi, an Islamic scholar and the text he wrote, such was his contribution to mathematics. And there is a good reason our numbers are called Arabic numerals. The christians burnt the original texts, they were the destroyers there, the texts survive only because copies were preserved by islamic scholars. Likewise all science effectively died under christianity for some one and a half thousand years, it only continued in islam. During the crusades, it was the Christians who persecuted people of other religions, in some places even subjecting them to the Inquisition, and massacres such as the Albigensian crusade, and blood libel, Islamic areas merely taxed non-muslims, which was significantly more tolerant. We can't have got such tolerance from the Christians as they had none. N.b. I am not islamic, nor jewish. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
- I really don't see the relevance of algebra and numerals to systems of morality and law. The contributions made by the Islamic world in science nonwithstanding, the influence of Islamic thought and tradition in shaping Western common and civil law systems and the Western conception of morality -- the contexts in which the term Judeo-Christian is most used by far -- has been minimal. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 5 23:08 (UTC)
  - I'd classify as a hopeless endeavor any effort to cast Islam as less significant to Western thought than its Abrahamic precursors. At a minimum, I think all will agree that Islam has shaped the West by opposition -- Christian thought of the last 1400 years uses Islam as THE anti-model. The moral and legal order of the West would not exist as it does without its favorite antithesis. This is not to disparage Islam -- most Christian criticisms of it in pre-modern times was made in ignorance. To ignore Islam's role in shaping the Western world is as much of a folly as it would be to ignore the Roman role in shaping the early Christian world. And, of course, as above, without the saving grace of Islamic scholars, the Renaissance might well have been impossible. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)
Comment Isn't the standard term Abrahamic religion ? ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
Merge but no redirect Neologism, but salvagable content. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Abrahamic religion. 10k+ Google hits suggests that this is no neologism. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:54 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Abrahamic religion seems to be important enough to deserve at least a little space in Abrahamic religion and as as such should be redirected there as well. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 22:28 (UTC)
The current content is a mere dicdef (a discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of a word or phrase). My preference would be to transwiki though I could also support the redirect argument. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
Merge into Abrahamic religions per Pharos. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
- Comment I feel moved to object to the nominator's tone as well. His suggestion for a "logically consistent" expanded neologism is highly flawed -- Islam has 800 years more history and 600 million more followers than Sikhism, as well as a much more extensive involvement in Western history. Xoloz 6 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
Keep Neologism invented by Antonin Scalia though he used the term ""Judeo-Christian-Islamic" Klonimus 6 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:46 (UTC)

===>Allow me to comment As far as my original statements go, I think that some people here are either ignoring germane evidence, or misreading what I'm saying.

"10,300 is not a bad Google total" You're right, but 10,200 of them were from the past year. That is precisely what makes it a neologism. Neo=new, and who of us have ever heard this word used in commonday speech, or read it in the newspaper? Until that is the case, it is a neologism. It was not created out of academic or scientific necessity (such as a newly-discovered element, for instance), but rather political jockeying to infer that Islam and its associated culture are as deeply integrated into Western society as Judaism and Christianity's. The contributions those faith traditions have made in art, law, politics, language, and others pale in comparison to Islam's, which are not themselves without merit or worth mentioning. They simply aren't as fundamental. In point of fact, as was described above by Xoloz, the West has been defined as an opposing socio-cultural group versus Islamic society for centuries. This dialectic has been made almost universally by Westerners, Muslims, and third-party objective analysis. I have never in my life read any source, academic or otherwise, that would insinuate the histories of those two large social categories are intimately intertwined in the same way that Jewish and Christian culture have been. The assertion is untenable.

"language like "PC garbage" and "Islamic apologist" has no place in deletion nominations" I certainly don't see why not. I'm building a case against the inclusion of this article in a (virtual) encyclopedia, and my main complaint is that it is politically-motivated (PC) and it is certainly not NPOV (garbage). The objection to the term "Islamic apologist" puzzles me: several of these sites were, in fact, apologetic in nature, in favor of defending Islam. I would imagine the authors themselves would claim the same. There is certainly no reason to disregard a site simply becuase it is an Islamic apologetic source (in fact, I referenced one in this article, since it had a good overview of objective information), but the motivation of the authors in using this term is clearly to pursue a political agenda, rather than present objective fact. Since they are using this neologism for non-academic purposes, their use as justification for keeping this article is suspect at best.

"It's good that tolerance of Islam is still regarded as PC garbage. It would be horrid if people became "tolerant" to all religions, wouldn't it?" The reason that I put "tolerant" in quotes here is not because I desire intolerance, but rather, the word itself is used in a politically-motivated context, and has significantly different meanings to different people using it in the same discussion. Since "tolerance" can mean anything from embracing, to accepting, to simply not discriminating against (and discrimination is also vague word of this type), it is a vague word in regards to "religious tolerance". I'm not actually advocating any kind of attitude toward Islam or Muslims at all, and I'm not critical of any attitude toward that worldview either. My criticism is directed toward the kind of political manipulation and thought-control implied in trying to shoehorn Islam into a category of influence where it simply does not belong. As with all immense social groups ("Pacific Islanders", "Sub-Saharan Africa", etc.), the cultural traditions that exist today are the product of interaction with several other such cultures. None of us would argue that black, urban America have influenced American culture, which is itself a large component of current Western culture, but the traditions of the past 70 years of black, urban culture pale in comparison to centuries of deeply-ingrained thought produced by Judaism and Christianity. There is no need to overlook or discredit the impact of Islam on Western society, but certainly no need to inflate it, either, unless there are some kinds of ulterior motives at work. It is a knee-jerk reaction to perceived criticism of Islam, like below:

"During the crusades, it was the Christians who persecuted people of other religions, in some places even subjecting them to the Inquisition, and massacres such as the Albigensian crusade, and blood libel, Islamic areas merely taxed non-muslims, which was significantly more tolerant." This has nothing to do with anything. The user here goes from extolling the virtues of Islamic society and its contributions to the West (including citing Arabic numerals, which were a product of Indian, pre-Islamic society, and were only exported to the West due to the efforts of an Italian) to an historical criticism of Western, Christian society. You can harbor and express any discontent you have with Western Christianity, but how is it relevant to this discussion? It's not. This mini-diatribe is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reaction I mentioned above. Nowhere in my description am I critical of Islamic society, and there is no justification in terms of this vote for criticizing Christian society either. It's entirely out of place.

"His suggestion for a "logically consistent" expanded neologism is highly flawed -- Islam has 800 years more history and 600 million more followers than Sikhism, as well as a much more extensive involvement in Western history." Of course, but this isn't merely a numbers game - Sikhism has more followers than Judaism, and Zoroastrianism has existed for approxiametly as long, but neither has any definable significance in Western culture. Islam does play a larger role in the historical shaping of Western society, but it is much smaller than Judaism and Christianity's by far. This is exactly the point that I'm making. Also, I find it highly doubtful this term was invented by Antonin Scalia. Justin (koavf) 03:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

- My only reply to your comment is that, as you consider "Islamic Apologists" to be "PC", so I consider those who characterize Islam as insignificant in Western History to be "PC." The term is incredibly subjective -- you're entitled to use it as you like, but (as the criticism you garnered suggests) I would submit that such language does not aid in fostering a consensus. Typically, dispassionate language builds consensus more easily.

Also, I question your assertion that calling something "garbage" is equivalent to calling it "POV." Clearly, much value can come from "POV" works, e.g. any religious text. POV works do not belong here, but that does not make them "garbage". I think the word "garbage" upset many readers. Xoloz 07:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I simply don't see how the argument is even relevant. I don't see the phrase as stating that Christianity is as close to Islam as it is to Judaism. As the article says, "it is used when referring to something shared by all Abrahamic religions." Even if one generally has need to refer to such things less frequently than one has need to refer to things shared by only two of the religions, it can nonetheless still be encyclopedic. I put no stock in most of the links being "within the last year" because 1) even a recently coined phrase would be encyclopedic if it has caught on sufficiently; the date is not realy the point, 2) web pages are very fleeting by nature, so I'd imagine this statement is true of many Google searches, and 3) I don't even trust Google's "dates" for webpages anyway, I have no clue what they're based on. And yes, if your objection is "that it is politically-motivated and it is certainly not NPOV", then SAYING that instead of "PC garbage" and "apologists" would be a really good idea. Dcarrano 17:28, 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 redirect to R-module. – AB CD 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faithful module[edit]

It makes reference to something that doesn't apparently exist. Justin (koavf) July 5, 2005 04:11 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 05:49 (UTC) After edit, abstain; the article I read mentioned "cyborgs" and was completely different. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:22 (UTC)
Delete if no further context is given. (The term is valid in mathematics, though.[7]). -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)
This shouldn't be deleted, since it's a valid term. I copied the Planetmath article to replace the nonsensical joke, but it's too small and anyway, the information is already in R-module so... Strong Redirect to R-module. I didn't create the redirect since I think we're not supposed to remove the vfd tag, maybe when the voting ends the redirect can be created. drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)
Vote change: Redirect to R-module as per Drini. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
Redirect as per drini. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 00:20 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Duede[edit]

Notability not established. Probably vanity. Sietse 5 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

Delete non notable, possible student vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)
Delete nn college student vanity. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:57 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:30 (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. – AB CD 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wilkens[edit]

Article does not establish notability (see WP:MUSIC criteria). Sietse 5 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Delete non notable vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)
Delete nn teen vanity. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)
Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. "His folk balladry recalls such legendary personalities as..." is code for "not notable, but gee I sure hope I get famous like them." -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 21:58 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:32 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Bixby[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Probably vanity. Sietse 5 July 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that original author is Jwbixby. Notability of author not established. Probably a vanity page. Delete. – Mipadi July 5, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
Keep! First-year law students are inherently notable! They eat, and sleep, and study law, and apparently they edit Wikipedia, and... errr... what I really mean is delete. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)
Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)
Userfy. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 06:45 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and userfied the content - the article can surely be deleted (or if not, then I deserve an article... which I don't). -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
Delete nn law student vanity. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:33 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mu[edit]

Unverifiable and not really notable. Sietse 5 July 2005 05:50 (UTC)

Note that author is Richard Mu, which points to vanity page. Person is not notable, and information is unverifiable. Delete. – Mipadi July 5, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
"Richard Mu is an 8th grader... He has currently derived the Einstein field equation, and now hopes to find the Schwarzschild solution..." Delete, hoax. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
Delete, non-verifiable from unrelated external sources. Vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:17 (UTC)
Delete - user has posted some of this info on his user page, and is welcome to do the same for all. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:15 (UTC)
Delete kid vanity. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:34 (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. – AB CD 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc stevens[edit]

This one-sentence article is a promo for a non-notable author of a non-notable book. The book is only for sale via the author's political website (linked in the article), which also makes the article advertising. Author and book cannot be found on Amazon. Tobycat 5 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Delete per Tobycat. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 06:07 (UTC)
Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
Delete as containing little more than external link advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
Delete book advert, not even vanity. --Habap 5 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
Adventures in Delete Land. non-notable/advert/vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Delete ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:36 (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 MERGE AND REDIRECT -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737-233[edit]

Hoax, Air Canada inherited their 737-200s from Canadian Airlines and Boeing customer numbers don't change upon sale or new ownership of aircraft FunkyChicken! July 5, 2005 05:56 (UTC)

Delete this, the one below, and the other unremarkable subvariants contributed by the same user:

(or at the very least redirect them to Boeing 727 and Boeing 737 respectively. None of them contain any information other than noting which airline this model number was built for. If any when anyone can add anything substantial to what differentiates them, some may eventually warrant separate articles. Others may be hoaxes/mistakes also. --Rlandmann 5 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Delete and if possible (ie somebody is willing to take the time) merge verifiable claims with 737 article. As per Rlandmann. --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)
Delete/Merge. It might be polite to ask the contributor to gently merge the information with the 737 article himself? --Excession 5 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
- Good idea. Rlandmann has already been in dialogue with him about these pages, see the guys talk page... I'll add something. --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
- I believe the "contributor" is a blocked sockpuppet. --Mothperson 5 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
Merge — at least some of these variants do show up in other sources.[8], [9] and particularly [10]. But I think they can be readily merged into a table on the appropriate Boeing aircraft pages. — RJH 5 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)
Merge all - definitely don't obliterate from the encyclopedia altogether. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
Merge all, as per BDA. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
Merge the lot of them. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:30 (UTC)
Merge per RJH RoySmith 6 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
Comment The 737-225 and 737-233 are not actual aircraft, so they should not be merged. The others should be merged or place on a Boeing 737-200 first tier customer list. If anything the history of Air Canada's 737-200s which were inherited from Canadian Airlines which in turn inherited them from CP Air, Eastern Provincial Airlines, and Pacific Western Airlines after they were all merged into Canadian. Just because Air Canada owned them doesn't mean that they get renumbered Boeing customer numbers (see the book Boeing Aircfaft from 1916 by Peter Bowers for a complete explination). I have spent about 10 minutes going over the 737-200 production list and there are not any 737-233s or 737-225s, for that matter. You can find one such list here [11]. FunkyChicken! July 9, 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Delete I have made an error in my research. Also thanks to Radiant for changing my original user Toasthaven's password. I am reporting you! -- Toasthaven2 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - as above, The Time Killer

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 to delete, so merged with the others. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737-225[edit]

Hoax, Eastern Airlines was never a Boeing 737-200 customer, so there would be no aircraft with this designation FunkyChicken! July 5, 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Delete, unable to verify, non-encyclopedic. If it were factual, I'd say merge, but since it apparently isnt... --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Delete per Moritz and also section above --Excession 5 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
Comment The 737-225 is not an actual aircraft. I have spent about 10 minutes going over the 737-200 production list and there are no 737-225s. You can find one such list here [12]. FunkyChicken! July 9, 2005 00:48 (UTC)
Keep I have seen photos of these aircraft! Toasthaven2 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Passenger[edit]

It's an organization, it's a magazine, it's a website . . . but when I start to examine what this is about, it just seems to be a magazine that took two years to prepare and of which a grand total of one (1) issue has appeared, backed up by a tremendously inoffensive/vague mission statement and a website that merely serves to advertise the magazine (and whose content has been plagiarized/recycled for this article). But perhaps I'm missing something here. Right now, however, no other WP article is linked from it or to it. I'd suggest zapping this until either (a) half a dozen issues of this magazine have come out or (b) any issue of the magazine gets itself in the news. -- Hoary July 5, 2005 06:16 (UTC) .... Thanks to a suggestion by Grutness (see below), I now think slightly differently -- although I still propose deletion of the existing content. See my "Comment cum clarification cum revised proposal" below. -- Hoary July 6, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Hoary's rationale; an inter-college newspaper could easily become notable, but this does not seem to have gotten there yet. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 06:19 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Tobycat 5 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
Delete (non-notable). Dusik 5 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
Delete nn, ad for magazine. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
Rewrite as stub on Iggy Pop song. Grutness...wha? 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
- Comment cum clarification cum revised proposal: I hadn't heard that there was an Iggy Pop song with this title, but I'm not surprised to learn that the title is used elsewhere. Since there was no article for the film Professione: reporter when I looked yesterday, I wondered if there was one for its anglophone title, The Passenger. It was thus that I landed on this article. I subsequently started Professione: reporter and thought I might turn The Passenger into a redirect. Thinking that that might be construed as vandalism, I refrained. Rather than dragging Michelangelo Antonioni into the conversation, I thought I'd recommend zapping The Passenger and (if/when it was zapped) re-creating the page as a redirect. Right then: I now propose to zap the content as it is now and to create a disambig page with (for now) two options: (i) "The Passenger" (Iggy Pop song) (or similar), and (ii) Professione: reporter. -- Hoary July 6, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  - One of his better known songs - it's on Lust for Life. The Passenger (song) would be the other possible title for the article. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 07:04 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Closing the discussion early.

Mstatefans.com[edit]

This article is a promo for a web site. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The entire text of the article is: "Your Unofficial Fan Forum For Mississippi State Bulldog Athletics mstatefans.com" Tobycat 5 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

Delete, non-encyclopedic. If this website is notable in the Mississippi State community, then perhaps it should be in the external links section of that article instead. - Thatdog 5 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
Delete notability not established, website advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
Speedy delete. If all it contains is a link, then as advertising it qualifies for speeeeedy deletion, as it doesn't even try to establish notability. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
Already Speedy deleteed! Stewart Adcock 5 July 2005 09:43 (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. – AB CD 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate's Dinner Adventure Deletion, Round 2[edit]

Delete. - This should be deleted again, for the same reasons as the first time it was deleted. --jackohare 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate's Dinner Adventure[edit]

This two-sentence article is a promotion for a dinner-show that won't even open until December. It qualifies for deletion as: advertising, predicting the future, and not notable. Tobycat 5 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)

Delete. Promotion, future events, non-notable. Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)
Delete promo of future event. Nothing verifiable can be said of it. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:40 (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 merge into bus spotting - 5 votes to delete (including the nominator, although it may be questionable to call that a vote); 5 votes to merge; no votes to keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The merge is now done. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bus enthusiast[edit]

Should this be merged into bus spotting? —Ghakko 5 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)

There exist templates like {{merge}} for that; VFD is for articles to be deleted. --SPUI (talk) 5 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Sorry; I'll rephrase. :) Should this article be deleted in favour of bus spotting? —Ghakko 5 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Delete. The bus spotting article covers the topic and we can't have an XYZ enthusiast for every XYZ. --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
Delete per Moritz.-Splash 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
Merge. Bus spotting has 4x more google hits. jdb ❋ (talk) 5 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
Merge --SPUI (talk) 5 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Delete before someone who really, really likes Bus enthusiast creates Bus enthusiast enthusiast --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
Merge with "Bus spotting" - I was the one who started this article. But at that time, I didn't know that there was the "bus spotting" article. Sorry about that. I think it is good to merge this article with "bus spotting". - Alanmak 6 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Bus spotting. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)
Delete anything relevant can be merged with Bus spotting but bus enthusiast is somewhat self-defining Gabe 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:48 (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 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. – AB CD 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental resource planning[edit]

This article is about enterprise resource planning, instead of environmental resource planning. We already have a better article about the former subject. Sietse 5 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

Delete because of confusing title and duplication of existing content. Merging with enterprise resource planning is not necessary, in my opinion. Sietse 5 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
Delete. A highly dangerous article that attempts to identify plutocracy with environmentalism by its very title. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to enterprise resource planning, and express confusion at why it was given this title. -Splash 5 July 2005 21:11 (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 delete. – AB CD 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Wiest[edit]

Probable hoax. The only Quentin Wiest mentioned on the Kenyon College website[13] is a student Susvolans (pigs can fly) 5 July 2005 07:08 (UTC)

Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
Delete as student hoax. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
Delete NN Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 00:12 (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. – AB CD 18:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will county Illinois Kills your rights[edit]

Rant, not an article. Delete. andy 5 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)

Delete Isn't "rant" a category for Speedy Deletion? No? Why not? --Wetman 5 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
- Opinions on what is a rant may vary. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:31 (UTC)
Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
Speedy delete. POV, and a copyvio. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
Delete, original research at best. But Google reveals no copyvio. -Splash 5 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Delete, non-encyclopedic rantThepinterpause 5 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
Delete non-encyclopedic rant -- DavidH July 5, 2005 18:42 (UTC)
Delete you have the right to remain silent. ;-) --Habap 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
Delete make the ranting stop. --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:43 (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 delete. – AB CD 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Pathak[edit]

Vanity,nn -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)

Delete? vanity Bedel23 July 5, 2005 07:40 (UTC)
Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello July 5, 2005 07:54 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 5 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
Delete, as above. Sorry Suraj - I'm sure you're reading this! --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:40 (UTC)
Delete. I'd normally suggest moving to his user page, but as Suraj has ignored several messages to stop adding to his vanity article and has removed the vfd tag a few times already, deletion might be the only way to get his attention. --Calton | Talk 5 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity (with photo included). --Etacar11 5 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Delete - blah blah vanity blah. -- Cyrius|✎ 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Student who has achieved nothing of note. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
Delete- for the reasons cited above.--Bhadani 8 July 2005 17:49 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The New Droid Army[edit]

Appears to be copied from a computer game package. However, it fails to establish context, or a definition. Would this be a copyvio? Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Delete. Copyvio or not, it contains no information and covers no territory not already in our existing Star Wars articles. Either way, it ought to be deleted. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 08:51 (UTC)
Delete. I also suspect it's a video game or level thereof. And, given the lack of context, we certainly don't need it. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Aqua[edit]

Non-notable hack. Sonic Mew July 5, 2005 08:32 (UTC)

Delete so non-notable -Harmil 5 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)
- "Cruft" is not a deletion criteria. Sonic Mew July 6, 2005 19:57 (UTC)
Delete. Grue 6 July 2005 11:57 (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. – AB CD 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wickham heart pacemaker[edit]

Nn/vanity. Very few results on google. They did not innovate pacemakers. Not encyclopedic. Redundant Telectronics cardiac pacemaker -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

Delete. The pacemaker is non-notable. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
delete in part. From my memory the article appears relevant and historically correct downwards from line " The first clinical use..." below change needed where " Elma Schonander" should read 'Elema Schonander' while "Slowman" should read "Sloman", also the later part from "Telectronics Inc. was incorporated..." seems to be of little encyclopedic value. user Graham Woods MD 7 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Telectronics cardiac pacemaker[edit]

Nn/vanity. Very few results on google. They did not innovate pacemakers. Not encyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)

delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
Delete There's nothing in the article about the pacemaker itself, thus non-notable. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
delete Non-notable seems to be vanity user Graham Woods MD 7 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Reich (Army)[edit]

It's kind of sad that this guy died, but he's not really notable otherwise, and Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:NOT). Scott5114 5 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Keep. Yes, I know I wrote the article, but this guy is pretty notable - a champion baseballer who died on a well-publicised mission in Afghanistan. Sort of like Pat Tillman, albeit on a smaller scale. Anyway, if this is not notable, I'll accept it. But he may be honored for the mission he died in, and I might resurrect the article (if deleted) should that happen. Harro5 July 5, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
Delete Not notable as a talented amateur baseballer, not notable as some army guy who was shot down in a helicopter. Still not notable when both are combined. WP:NOT etc etc. Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
Delete With fond thoughts to his family, I have to vote to delete. I'm sure there are good memorial sites on which he can be listed. -Harmil 5 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
Weak keep. I remember hearing about this mission+rank of Major+amateur baseball= weak keep. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)
- Comment. If we had an EnWiki article for every Major in the Army, we'd get to a million articles a lot faster. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
Delete. That he is "Pat Tillman on a smaller case" sounds very non-notable to me. And we're still not a US Army memorial site... /Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
Delete I feel for his family, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
Userfy to either Harro5's page or mine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
Delete per Proto, however, observe 4480 Google hits. They seem to be almost exclusively about his death, however, and WP:NOT a memorial. -Splash 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Weak delete, WP:NOT a memorial, and not really notable enough. Certainly include him if there's any reason to create a list of Pat Tillman types. But by himself, "Steve Reich" + "career statistics" turns up nothing relevant, and that test is usually pretty good for determining notability of baseball players. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 21:32 (UTC) New vote below. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
Weak Keep It makes me sad that a video game player Emil Christensen would deserve a page here, but Major Reich does not. While Reich's name may not have made it out in the news, the event did. --Habap 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
- Is it worthy enough to write an article on the crash, even a short stub? Would that helkp keep this Reich article? I'd be willing to write such a piece - respond here or on my talk page. Harro5 July 5, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
  - We have an article listing those; see below. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
Switching my vote from a weak delete to Strong merge with Casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Since he died in Operation Enduring Freedom, the article content would fit well there (that article is also in severe need of an update, as it's got no new casualties since January 2004). Since he died with 16 other troops, his incident would certainly make that list; the list has incidents where as few as four soldiers were killed. Maybe it should read, "June 28, 2005: 17 American soldiers, including former West Point baseball player Steve Reich, ...". Just a suggestion. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor is it WikiNews. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a war memorial. Wikipedia is not a fan club for the US armed forces. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
- Comment: While I accept your votes to delete (see above), please do not try to brush this article off as some sort of "look at those brave Americans" promo - this is an article with interesting and factual content, albeit isn't right for an encyclopedia. Harro5 July 6, 2005 03:48 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)
Keep notable. Grue 6 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:31 (UTC)
Delete. Every war death is notable, but not every death is individually encyclopedically notable. Quale 7 July 2005 20:45 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep as rewritten and a cookie for Harmil for his labor. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Michael Carter[edit]

This article is probably utter nonsense. Stewart Adcock 5 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Comment: real actor (imdb page), false information in article. Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
Keep I've turned it into a stub with verified factual data. -Harmil 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
Keep per Harmil. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
Keep with cleanup looks fine. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Harmil. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of closing and speedy keeping this article as rewritten. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:38 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Archiving the discussion.

Poobell[edit]

A grand total of 21 google hits, none of which seem to have to do much with the article's contents. Looks like a lame joke to me. --Ferkelparade π 5 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Speedied. Lame sexual joke. Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 09:11 (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 20:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saito Ninjitsu[edit]

A made up martial art with many fraudulent claims. Cannot be verified from external sources. I suggest we delete that page. 130.231.240.17 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

Note that this was a fairly formidable article up to [this point]. But for all I know, the whole thing might be garbage/nn. Few Google hits that aren't WP, copied from WP or the referenced link (which is presumably the only school that offers this stuff). Note that the article was created in good faith by User:Eco, who also created a number of martial art articles, including the one on Ninjutsu. In this, he mentions Saito Ninjitsu as a very dubious art. I conclude: the article in its current form is garbage, in its old form is basically fancruft, non-verifiable and non-encyclopedic. I vote: Delete and Redirect to Ninjutsu. --Moritz 5 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)
Redirect Makes sense to me -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
Delete. Insignificantly notable newly created martial art with a (very likely) bogus history. Delete as unverifiable. I don't trust many of Eco's contribs to MA articles, while done in good faith, to be factually accurate. To me it seems he has used only few random webpages and the like as a basis of articles, without any verification with established scholarly sources of Japanese history. Needless to say, Saito Ninjitsu cannot be found from any of the 40+ books I have about classical Edo-period martial arts nor from websites generally held as reliable sources (koryu.com etc.) jni 7 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with the good reasons given above. Fire Star 7 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
Delete. Article says "has yet to show any proof", admitting unverifiability. Unverifiable means automatic delete. I accept jni's educated opinion. Quale 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with T-800. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T-600 (fictional character)[edit]

I usually don't mind fancruft, but I don't see the point with this one. The T-600 is only mentioned, and in a single scene, so it really doesn't need to have an article (maybe all the T-X articles should be merged?). Fredrik | talk 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Merge or Delete. I don't see why each model of Terminator has its own page, myself. If the T-600 is a predecessor to the T-800, and only merits one line of dialogue in the three films of the series, then mention it on the T-800 page. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)
Merge - Excession 5 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect Proto t c 5 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
Merge I don't pity the infrastructure normally, but reserving even a redirect seems an abuse of the namespace. Nope, I say merge and delete. -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)
- Someone will point out to you that 'merge and delete' isn't allowed (as you need to keep the edit history for merged stuff) Proto t c 5 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
Delete, simply nothing to provide content for an article here. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to T-800. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:52 (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 delete. Woohookitty 08:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul12[edit]

Looks like a band vanity page. Has an advertising link. Doesn't look like a lot of effort was expended on it. Can't really recommend anything, this is my first foray into VfD. Excession 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Delete Obviously needs cleanup, but I cannot find enough reference material to determine what this orchestra is and what they do. It sounds very interesting, and if they are involved in the preservation of cultural art forms (which, given the specialized turkish instruments, it sounds like they might be), then they would be notable in my book. Still, the page as-is is spam. -Harmil 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:50 (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!) 10:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RSLT[edit]

Google test shows there is no such language as RSLT. This has to be gone unless some reference is provided. -- Taku July 5, 2005 09:58 (UTC)

Delete - novelty. Excession 5 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
Delete: nn. --Moritz 5 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
Delete It looks like this is a draft that has only been published here. Obviously not notable -Harmil 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be 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. JeremyA 6 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

Daniel Lin[edit]

Serves only as prop for Cityvantage spam page. (I.e. not notable.) Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Delete, n.n. --Excession 5 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Sietse 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: NN and hardly any content. I'm going to kill it with a speedy template as per WP:CSD 1.2.1 & 1.2.3. --IByte 6 July 2005 00:41 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cityvantage[edit]

Not notable, spam only. So Sayeth Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Delete, as above --Excession 5 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
Delete, spam, ad, only three cities presently. Make it go away. --WCFrancis 5 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
Delete because not notable. Sietse 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Delete nn, ad. Jaxl 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
Delete blatant ad/spam. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Delete spam, and bad spam at that - sad --Muchosucko 6 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:49 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. In my role as an ordinary editor, I am going to be bold and merge and redirect it. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OmniTRACS[edit]

No links, very little content, possibly an attempt at advertisement Excession 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

Keep. Notable: gets 28,800 Google hits. I've removed the linky bit and cleaned the language a little, but I don't know enough to do the job properly. Incidentally, having no links is not a reason for deletion (having one is often more of a problem if it advertises the company!). -Splash 5 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, plus above edits. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
Exclude the press releases and advertisements and that google number drops quite a bit. It's a product by Qualcomm. Merge and redirect to the company (an article which has plenty of room for expansion). Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
Merge as per Rossami. Nabla 14:55:05, 2005-07-13 (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 20:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs played on Radio Disney[edit]

Just a playlist of a radio station (if special, then merge with article on the station) DePiep 5 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

Delete: not encyclopedic. --Moritz 5 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic -Harmil 5 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopeida, completely lacking in substance -Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
Delete. Wouldn't a radio station playlist change daily? I don't get it. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
- You give commercial radio far too much credit. Anyway, Delete. - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

:-) DePiep 7 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Delete not encyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)
Delete -- Unmaintainable. Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
Delete! --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 20:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael A. Huertas Hernández[edit]

Google reports only 3–4 sites with such a name [14]. Possible Vanity page? …Guy M… ^(soapbox) July 5, 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable, non-verifiable, vanity, and so on and so on. Sorry Rafael. --Moritz 5 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:48 (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 merge and redirect. Woohookitty 20:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven spielberg biography[edit]

This is a duplication (not copy) of material that belongs in Steven Spielberg. While I think this article should not exist (if for no other reason naming conventions), there may be some useful info among the Spielberg worship POV stuff.

On June 10, 2005, I suggested at Talk:Steven spielberg biography that it be merged. On June 29, 2005, I added this suggestion to Talk:Steven Spielberg. I feel that I am not qualified to make such a merge, but I haven't shaken enough trees to find someone who has an interest in doing it. I am not voting at this time. WCFrancis 5 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Merge WCFrancis, be bold -Harmil 5 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
Merge as per Harmil. Jaxl
Merge This doesn't need to come to VFD. If there is really nobody with the time to do the merge, one trick is to make it a redirect, and copy the text to Talk:Steven Spielberg. DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Is it ok to do that now or should I wait until the VfD is closed? That would be consistent with what I had in mind. --WCFrancis 6 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Merge would be my vote, in that case. I have already copied the material to Talk:Steven Spielberg but have left it at Steven spielberg biography pending closing of this VfD. However, I think it unlikely that anyone would do a search for "Steven Spielberg biography" instead of just "Steven Spielberg". --WCFrancis 20:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lim[edit]

Vanity. Sietse 5 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

Student who has done nothing except, apparently, play World of Warcraft, but "someone to look at in the future". This could go on a user page, not an article. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 15:06 (UTC)
- It was written by an anonymous user, so I think that userfying is not an option. Sietse 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
Delete vanity -Harmil 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
Delete nn high school vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. --Ragib 6 July 2005 06:58 (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 (11 legitimate votes to keep, 7 to delete including the nominator). -- BD2412 ^talk 06:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Edip Yuksel[edit]

This VFD was incorrectly created from the old page and was inadvertently closed as I was working to close out the June 24 VFDs. I've created a new VFD page. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

This page has been deleted repeatedly after going through VfD at least once (old VfD nomination at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edip Yuksel). However, consensus at WP:VFU was for undeletion, so I have undeleted and brought it back here. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Comment Feel free to read the full proceedings at VfU and the VfD linked above, but it should be noted that the consensus was that the first VfD was improper or at least confusing. Most voted to delete as a recreation of deleted material. However, it was not brought up until the very end that the original delete was a speedy, not a VfD. I will be actively working to improve this article this week, as will a number of other users. With that said, I am not sure how notable this individual is in the grand scheme, and the article may be more trouble than it's worth (there are several people who are strongly committed to pushing a non-encyclopedic, POV version of the article.) I inserted myself into the VfU proceedings since I felt process was not followed, but since VfD is about content, I will abstain. No vote. --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Keep Add appropriate tags (I'll do it) until cleanup is complete, but this is clearly a notable person who should have an entry. -Harmil 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

Keep notable in his country. Grue 5 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Abstain since I can't read the foreign-language google hits; however, what I can read seems very much like shameless self-promotion. If someone could say something about the foreing language stuff, I would like to change my vote to reflect that... --Scimitar 5 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

Keep - I believe he is a borderline case but I think he should be kept. However, we should not let his recent Qur'an alone activities overshadow the whole article since they are not what brought around most of his notoriety. gren 5 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Keep - See discussion at VfU. He is certainly prominent, though the page needs, I think, another coat of paint. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Keep - Not only is Edip's prominence well known, he is the intellectual successor of Rashad Khalifa whose ideas have sent and continue to send shock waves through the Muslim world. The God Alone (Quran alone) movement is headed in great part by the ideas of Edip whose work in this area is prolific. He has been a significant contributor in much of Rashad's major ideas in his later years.

Delete, unless radically improved: Still sounds like POV, promotion. Unless this article is cleaned up greatly, this should be deleted. From what I see thru searching, it looks like he is not that much notable. --Ragib 5 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position (in response to user:idmkhizar's comments on my vote below), I base my opinion on Google search on this, and not on any religious viewpoint. Thanks. --Ragib 5 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Keep - It is good to see the article restored finally. And "ragib" i believe that you are a sunni or shia Muslim who doesnt like Quran Aloners and thats why you want this article deleted. Is that so or am i wrong? If thats true then i suggest you should take a look at the "sahih" hadith you endorse at http://www.y19.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=109. Quran Aloners are peaceful people and promote world peace and understanding and we believe that the Quran Alone is the ultimate guide to achieve this goal NOT the hadith. -- user:idmkhizar
- Khizar, I've said it before and I'll say it again...you're really shooting yourself in the foot with this one. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as it is official policy here. Ragib is welcome to his opinion, as are you. What you are not welcome to do is attack another user...if anything, that is likely to turn community opinion against you. Just calm down and build up the article...as long as it remains neutral (as I believe it now is), the community feels that Yuksel is notable, and this contains information about the full spectrum of his work (not just Qur'an Alone), then I'm sure it will be kept. --MikeJ9919 5 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Delete - No one considered Edip noteworthy before he discovered Wikipedia and commenced on a campaign of self-glorification. Even the editors saying that the article should be kept base their view on Edip's own claims to be a best-selling Turkish author, which I do not regard as substantiated. If a Turkish-speaking Wikipedian (who is NOT connected in any way with Edip Yuksel or the United Submitters) shows up here and says that "Yeah, that guy, he's notorious in Turkey", then I'll say he's notable. Given that Edip proudly lists as publications material that was put out by the United Submitter press -- which is tantamount to vanity publication -- I do not trust his assertions re publications in Turkish. Zora 5 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)
- Khizar- Zora for the last time it was me Khizar Zamurrad Janjuah who set up his article. It is entirely my work. Edip has nothing to do with it. So blame me if you wanna but leave Edip out. Hes compltetly innocent of anything that went on here. Do u hear me? And i dont agree with ur point. He is famous more than Ali Sina, who doesnt even show his face? Aint it dumb to allow a person's article whose very identity aint even known? U dont know who tht guy is. There might be an organization behind his name which maybe chritsian or anti islam anti Quran orientied. But no anyone whos against Quran he has to be promoted no matter whether hes famous or not. N Edip who has struggled all is life, is so famous, has published so many books, has had so many live debates on TV and aint even scared to give out his phone number, picture and location u consider him of no worth. This makes me mad u know. Here Zora, take a look at this from Ali Sinas article: Sina quotes:
  - "Islam is not a religion of love but a doctrine of hate." [2]
  - "The ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world; Islam is political and political Islam is fascism." [3]
  - "Islam is a house of cards that will collapse if sufficiently pushed." [4]
  How come sina is allowed to make such quotes n self promotion and on Edips article u dont allow his views to be expressed in a neutral form? Wht kind of nonsense is this? Can u explain this to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.89.24 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

- - - Khizar: This is not a chat room. These rants are not only inappropriate here, which may or may not bother you, but very likely to encourage people to vote against your position. Also, as a housekeeping note, you can sign and date your posts by using four tildes -- this is a tilde ~ -- at the end of what you want to say. BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

- - Well, this passionate rebuttal and arguments should actually go to Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion/Edip Yuksel 2 instead of this page. --Ragib 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
    - Comment: Actually, it should not go to the Talk page. The Talk pages for VfD discussions are not used. The anon user's comments may strike you as a rant but this is the correct place to express his/her opinion. Rossami (talk)
    - Comment 2: The anon user should know that as a procedural safeguard, opinions expressed by anonymous users are steeply discounted during the decision-making process. Verifiable facts and evidence and well-reasoned arguments which contribute to the discussion are, however, welcome and encouraged. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Delete - Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 04:46 (UTC) Not Notable. While clearly this is an issue that some feel passionate about, please:
- Be brief if you can.
- If we must use Google, at least ~~use Google News~~ use it wisely. Wikipedia:Google test
  - Google for "Aaron Brenneman" yeilds 38 hits, ""Edip Yuksel" yields 3,690 - so his name 100 times more notable than mine?
  - Google News search gives both our names zero results - so maybe we're the same after all.
- Thus can we please debate this in some other fashion? Published works, speaking at reputable conference, etc.

Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

Delete, notability not established. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Keep notability well established. Just visit [15]. Also you'll find more than 15000 entries for Edip Yuksel at yahoo.com -- user:Hasan Ozturk

Just a small comment on that, if I create a website on my name promoting myself, would I become notable overnight? Most entries I find for Yuksel in google are from his website, wikipedia mirrors, or newsgroups where he posted himself. Also searching for "Edip Yuksel" return 3600 entries in google. --Ragib 6 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit . --Ragib 6 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)

Keep, Edip Yuksel is very notable as he was famous former Turkish sunni scholar -- user:avalanche361 July 6, 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Note: User's first edit . --Ragib 6 July 2005 11:01 (UTC)
Another note: while I keep hearing how notable and famous he was before he started on his Qur'an Alone campaign, I haven't seen anyone try to expand the article with any of his views or commentary on that score. I think this article has potential, but I'm getting the feeling that those who might know more about it are reluctant to expound on that for fear of drawing interest away from Qur'an Alone. I may be wrong, but that's my impression. avalanche361, if you know more about this topic, please feel free to add to the article. --MikeJ9919 6 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Note: It is quite possible we won't see a lot of Muslims contribute constructively to this article. The anti-hadith views Edip are espousing are widely regarded as heretical, so mainstreamers may choose not to associate themselves with him -- or, contrariwise, choose to throw tomatoes. Edip is also keen to discuss and draw attention to mathematical miracles within the Qur'an, which most middle-of-the-road Muslims see as a distraction (at best) and/or part of a campaign to remove two verses from the Qur'an (at worst -- this latter view of the text is, again, widely seen as heresy). I don't know why Qur'an-alone people would avoid the article. BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)

Khizar- Hi Brandon. Well i suggest Muslims should think about the fact that a law cannot be proven to exist unless someone tries to break it. Now since GOD states in the Quran that He'll protect it He thus made it a law. So actually now that people tried to inject false verses GOD in His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy showed through one of His messengers RK by the mathematical pattern nbased on no 19 in Quran that these two verses do not belong into Quran. Now one may ask "why was it allowed for 1400 years". I can only say that i dont know the exact reason but maybe GOD knew that most of the people in that time were corrupt anyway and didnt deserve the real Quran whereas for those little who were honest He had other ways of informing them of the true Quran which we today dont know off and it is unimportant. Whats important is the signs of GOD that we have right now. Ive also written an article on this at The difference btw Quran/Dhikr ans the Mushaf

Keep. Seems to have been some kind of campaign to delete this article. Not amusing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

Only as part of the more general campaign to eliminate all ~~vanity crap~~ non encyclopedic content from WKP. SickOfMyNameSoUsingPseudonym 7 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Keep No reason for deletion what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.182.85 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 July 2005 (anon vote copied to correct location)

Note: User's first edit. - Pseudonym 7 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Keep He seems like a fairly important guy. From what I've read so far, there are much less prominent/famous people that have been kept.Heraclius 7 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable scholar. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 23:42 (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 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!) 11:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Software Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Advertising for software company. NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Delete — Abacus-Software Pvt. Ltd. is a Bangalore payroll software development company.[16] That doesn't even match the company name or business as stated in the article. — RJH 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
Delete Advertising Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:44 (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. -- BD2412 ^talk 06:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/ASCII cows[edit]

This article was originally nominated by SuperDude115, but I only just noticed it was never linked from the main VfD page. I am adding it, though several votes have already been made. the wub "?/!" 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Wikipedia opposes to comedic nonsense! This article has been the first article to be transwikied to Wikicomedy. For the foreseeable future, BJAODN articles should transwikied to Wikicomedy! http://comedy.wikicities.com/wiki/ASCII_cows is the new link for ASCII cows now. Any page that links to it on Wikipedia should undergo a facelift by changing those links to external links for Wikicomedy's version.

Delete and transwiki other BJAODN articles to Wikicomedy. --SuperDude 00:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep, and see Wikipedia_talk:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense, there is no consensus that BJAODN articles should be transwikied. the wub (talk) 12:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - there's no reason why both pages can't exist, especially as Wikicities is not an official sister project of Wikipedia. sjorford →•← 15:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Even if Wikicities is an unofficial sister project of Wikipedia; it is still a good place to transwiki BJAODN to! Why would anybody want to keep BJAODN on Wikipedia when Wikicomedy is a more appropriate place for it? --SuperDude 20:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I just can't see any reason to delete from Wikipedia. So long as Wikicomedy complies with the GFDL there is no reason why you can't copy the content there. As for why we'd want to keep it on Wikipedia, this is where it originated, and a lot of the jokes are set in a Wikipedia context. the wub (talk) 21:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep -SuperDude, sorry inspite that you were the one who invited me here. There's no harm keeping both, is there?--Jondel 04:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No problem, but according to the Talk page for BJAODN, some guy claimed that there has been anti-humor discussions for Wikipedia hence the reason for the transwiki of ASCII cows and some other material. --SuperDude 05:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT KEEP A COPY. a lot of the jokes are in an encyplopedic contest.—Xyzxyz
Keep. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- If it's deleted, it's no big deal, as I have a copy of the page here and here. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge with Cattle I admit this page is a joke, but it is AWESOME! Cows are funny. Personally, I'd rather it be included in the article cattle. I'm considering pasting it all into my user page. I want to know who made it--whoever wrote it spent a lot of time on it. The best part is a scene of a bull humping a cow, but the stuff does get boring after a while. Despite details, it's too long. Still it should go in cattle. Why? Why not! Muijzo 01:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep all good BJAODN pages. We have (as of now) 26 pages of BJAODN, some of which contain real gems and others of which aren't funny at all. This is one of the funniest pages in BJAODN and should most certainly be kept. --Idont Havaname 23:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hey U, Wikipedia is not a soapbox meaning that humor is not part of article criteria. Wikicomedy is the appropriate place for it. --SuperDude 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - How am I using WP as a soapbox? Your statement "For the foreseeable future, BJAODN articles should transwikied to Wikicomedy!" seems to be a move at changing VfD policy, and therefore could be included in using WP as a soapbox. VfD listings themselves are not the place to change VfD policy; that's why we have the Policy Consensus section. But I doubt you'd have much luck with this move to take BJAODN off of the site; it's one of the more well-liked corners of Wikipedia. It is also worth noting that Wikicities is not part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and therefore we cannot transwiki to it, per the information listed on the main VfD page. --Idont Havaname 23:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep!. Wikipedia needs ASCII cows. It's not a debatable point, it's an unquestionable fact! --TexasDex June 28, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
Keep all BJAODN pages. (Unsigned comment by 24.242.251.34 (talk · contribs))
Extra-Strong Keep - such brilliance should be KEPT HERE. We can't have too much brilliance. --Mothperson 5 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
Keep A little light entertainment never hurt (or herd?). We should certainly recognise the effort that went into "The herd shot round the world", at least until their professional help arrives. DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)
Keep until we have a sister project for jokes and things. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
Contains a Polish joke (I think), Merge with Anti-Polonism. --Moritz 5 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
Insert cow-related keep comment here. How about this - no official sister project to which we can mooooove this. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:34 (UTC)
Keep. Nomination is bull. -EDM 6 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
We do have a sister project for jokes - Wikibooks:Jokebook. Transwiki? Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)
Keep udderly essential. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)
Delete If the article is duplicated on an appropriate site (WikiComedy) there is no reason to have it here. Edwinx2 6 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)
Keep Just because WikiComedy has recognized the humor of this page is no reason deprive us Wikipedians who never even heard of WikiComedy. (Well, now I have heard of it, but you know what I mean.) betsythedevine 6 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
Keep and hook the nipples of any humorless prig who says otherwise up to a milking machine. Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
Keepon moooooooooooooooooooooving.
Keep This page is an extreme example of what happens when people really have no life at all. and it adds humour to Wikipedia too - I spent a good deal of time laughing hard at the page. A.K.R. 10:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to San Clemente, California Eliot 18:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poche[edit]

not notable. It's a beach. delete is preferable, but otherwise it could be merged into some other relevant article. UtherSRG July 5, 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Merge into geography section of San Clemente, California, where it is already mentioned. — RJH 5 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Merge and delete As above. I see no need for a redirect. -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:24 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomistas[edit]

Suspected vanity entry. Could be a non-notable Brazilian band. Got highly suspicious when an anonymous contributor added a band member in the 1988 births' section. In addition, the anonymous contributor deleted someone's "music-importance" tag which didn't help either. Krystyn Dominik 5 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC drini ☎ 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
Delete - no recordings - one Google hit [17] JoJan 5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
Delete, I get one Google hit with Anatomistas "Gabriel Shubsky" (their lead). No presence on allmusic.com. Not-notable.-Splash 5 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:37 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outland (shop)[edit]

Article doesn't establish why the shop is notable. Possible Advertising. WP is not a resource for conducting business. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) July 5, 2005 15:55 (UTC)

Delete not notable. DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
Delete advertising. Econrad 5 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
Delete - advertorial JoJan 5 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
Delete non notable advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:37 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 22:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Costello[edit]

I don't believe she is particularly notable Irishpunktom\^talk July 5, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Delete. Six unique hits on Google. Sorry, Savannah, it's not time yet. Fernando Rizo 5 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
Delete Not notable -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Econrad 5 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Delete nn as of right now. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
Delete NN --Ragib 6 July 2005 07:00 (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, 25k, 2d no evidence of sockpuppetry. I didn't do a detailed edit-count check on every vote as there are enough well established users to carry the consensus anyway. -Splash 02:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet ranks and insignia[edit]

The article caused quite a stir when it was listed as a FAC and a number of people objected to its validity as candidate for Featured Article. The third nomination has now been closed and seems to be heading for a PR. The article is extensive, referenced and reasonably well-written, but it's fancruft pure and simple. It's a fan project about a very non-notable and uninteresting aspect of a very notable and interesting phenomenon. Star Trek is encyclopedic, but this does not go for all aspects of it. This article belongs at a fansite like Wikicities, not on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:15 (UTC)

(See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Starfleet_ranks_and_insignia for the motivation behind this VfD. Guettarda 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC))

KEEP: This article is about the evolution of the ranks and insignias as seen in the Star Trek productions from the 1960s to the present. While Star Trek itself is fictional, the insignia worn by the actors is not and has evolved over the past forty years in several television series and over ten motion pictures. This article is well written, referenced, and is not original research. To delete this would mean that all other fiction articles, such as articles about the Death Star, the Millenium Falcon, and Phantasy Star (to name a few) would be up for deletion as well. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
- There is no Starfleet, and hence no Starfleet ranks. That means they're fictional. Though I don't know who would be deranged enough to interpret this vote as a precedent to remove all other article about fiction, I'd be very interested in getting some names. Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  - The insignia worn by the actors is real enough. Paramount costume department is paid well enough to make them.On a side note (and I ask this becuase I really don't know not to be smart!) are VFDs supposed to have comments to the votes? Once someone votes Keep or Delete is that it or do people then make comments on the vote to get the person to change their mind? An admin should probably answer that. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
    - I don't think reanactment really changes the status of anything that's fictional... As far as the vote goes, it's like most others as far as I know. If you want to change your vote, feel free to do it. And comments are as far as I know perfeclty acceptable, but not necessary. /Peter ^Isotalo July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
      - Question answered! Other VFDs appear to have a lot of cross discussion and it is in fact encouraged. -Husnock 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Keep, it'll give these people something to do on Saturday nights. No, seriously, as much as this article scares me... and as many totally obscure and non-encyclopedic things that I'm sure the Trekkies could throw at us... the organization of Starfleet does not seem to be one of them. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 16:41 (UTC)
Strong Keep - well written, well sourced article about factual material. Someone could write a dissertation on this. Sure, it's fancruft, but it's an encyclopaedia article about fancruft, not just a synopsis of an episode of a TV series or an article about a single character in a book or movie (see for example Tom Riddle). Guettarda 5 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)
Keep - it makes its fiction explicit, explains when things come from TV and when they're fan conjecture, is well sourced and referenced. To me, a model of what an article on a fictional topic should be. Now if only we had the same depth of coverage of Shakespeare. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
Keep I would vote for the deletion of an article like this for most fannish pursuits, but Star Trek has had a very real, very tangible impact (often negative, in terms of stifling other efforts) on the business and culture of science fiction in film and television over the span of 30 years. By that benchmark, Star Trek minutae are just as much cultural footnotes as any other 1960s-era details. I wouldn't cry if someone merged it into some larger topic and redirected, but I don't think it's necessary. -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
Keep I wouldn't have writtne this article, nor am i likely to contribute to it nor to consult it often, although I am fond of startrek. But I see no more problem with this than with any detail about a fictional universe, and less than many. However this article does demonstrate why, IMO most articles about details of fictional univese (such as characters, places, and the like) would benefit from a consistant notation linking them to their primary subjects and in effect taking them out of the main articel namespace. Something like Star Trek -- Rank insignia or Middle Earth -- Cats of Queen Berutheil might be a good standard. If subpages were not so strongly objected to, this might be a goos sue for them. This idea has been briefly discussed over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional Series/General but no decision has been made. DES 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Right, we delete this and we keep every Pokemon and one-room school article on Wikipedia. I'm going to assume good faith here, but I don't think this VfD is a terribly good idea. Keep. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)
Keep (SEWilco 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC))
Delete Fancruft, fictional, non-encyclopedic. I don't care how fascinating Star Trek is, none of it is REAL. Do we want 20,000 articles on every character and place name in LOTR? I love both of these made-up worlds, but I want my encyclopedia to stay rooted in this one. All those voting "keep" above should re-read their comments and admit that these type of articles belong on fan sites, not here. -(Unsigned vote by User:DavidH 5Jul05)
- You're arguing for the support of WP:FICT. This is one article on all the ranks and insignia. ONE! Comparing this to 20,000 articles on characters is so exhaggerated that it's ridiculous. Cburnett July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- I am underway in adding real world info, i.e. the people that actually created the ranks and the franchise that made the insignia for both the television and movies. When that is added, there will certianly be real world applications. My thanks to Xiong for bringing that issue to light. He's not so bad! Did i really just say that!?! -Husnock 5 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
Keep. Star Trek is one of the most well-known franchises in science. I can't think of a single other work of fiction that has seen 10 movies, 5 television series (700+ epsodes in 28 seasons), and I have-no-clue how many novels. Actually, I'm curious if there is anything close to Star Trek... The Simpsons only has 17 seasons but no movies. Fancruft strikes at the heart of "what is notable?" and my answer has essentially been: whatever someone wants to write about; the more people that would read or write it the more notable it is. Notability is not in the eye of any one person, but only one's assessment of notability. The article in question has OVER 600 EDITS IN 5 MONTHS and I can't think of much more of a slap in the face to the uncountable hours people have spent on this than to delete it. So to explicitly state something like this is non-notable and uninteresting to 45 editors (mind you that's only writers...readers is uncountable) is arrogant beyond measure that it's insulting. (And for the record, I've only made 8 edits to this article.) Cburnett July 5, 2005 18:58 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not of the opinion that a certain number of edits or editors is a criteria for inclusion (and for a very good reason). So how about staying away from the pure personal stuff, hm? /Peter ^Isotalo 18:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice straw man. Nevermind that I laid out my definition of notability but attack numbers used to apply my definition to this article: the point is that 45 editors find it notable and, so far, there are only two people here that don't. Clearly, it is not my definition of notability that needs readjustment. Cburnett 05:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  - As far as WP:CIVIL goes, saying that your VFD is insulting is not being uncivil. Maybe you need to take a look around and see where the vote lies: aside from your vote, there's only one other delete vote. I still find your VFD insulting and your attitude about me being incivil, also, as arrogant. If you care to continue this then take it to my talk page. Cburnett 05:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep JYOuyang 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
Keep I have been working with Husnock and Coolcat to make this article to par with standards that fits Featured articles. Though this did fail the FAC, I believe this article is piece of art and gives an introduction on how Starfleet is structured. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 5 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
Keep, well-sourced article about important part of Star Trek universe. Personally, I could care less about Star Trek, but this is not half as non-notable and crufty as some of the stuff Trekkies are writing and therefore not a valid deletion candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
Keep. Not fanfic, pure and simple. -- BD2412 ^talk July 5, 2005 22:36 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A good, comprehensive source for very specific information. Encyclopedic. - FabioB 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
Strong Keep and a Live Long and Prosper! Notable facet of cultural institution, and, as per above, I need something to do on Saturday nights! :) Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
Keep This is a legitimate article that has been the subject of a lot of hard work from a lot of people. This is a major part of something that is a major landmark of popular culture, it's certainly as notable and encyclopedic as many minor articles that have been kept. --Wingsandsword 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
Strong keep - Very, very good article. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)
Strongest Keep --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
Strong & Speedy Keep This is part of popular culture and therfore encyclopedic. Star Trek is a great franchise and I have made contributions--Ted-m 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
Strong Keep, and recommend the nominator have a look at WP:POINT. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
Strong Keep. According to Jimbo, it's primarily about verifiability and npov, baring in mind what Wikipedia is not. If there was somewhere to reasonably merge this content to, then that might be an option, but there isn't. It's a long article with lots of verifiable content. In the old days, this subject might have been a subpage of Starfleet, but we don't do subpages any more, so the content is deserving of its own article. Also, for those who like to throw the word cruft around, please try to remember that if it wasn't for all us crufters inhabiting this encyclopedia, Wikipedia wouldn't be the huge phenomena it is today. func (talk) 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
Keep for reasons already stated by others above. -JCarriker July 6, 2005 21:44 (UTC)
Comment. Not directly related but well worth a read is Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia#The Person formerly known as; Xiong's screed on why this should really not be a featured article, ever (except when applying an almost vindictive sort of pragmatism). This article is one of the finest examples of fancruft around, and I say this without passing judgement either way—it's a good example to compare against.

JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

While Xiong and I head hit head on in the early stage sof the FA, his later comments were actually quite enlightening and he made some outstanding points. I dont plan to pursue FA status anymore as a result. -Husnock 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

Keep. The subject of this article was created by real people for real uses and it has many real effects on real world people and events. Whether or not the insignia featured in Star Trek physically exist, the "ranks" represented by them do: Popular fictional characters hold them, and they matter. -- Rmrfstar 6 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
Keep. Just because an article causes debate on FAC doesn't mean it should be VFD'd. Having been away for a week I haven't had time to check out the who situation, but first impression is that this is an abuse of VFD. 23skidoo 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
- Without upseting the original nominator of the VFD, and keeping within the guidlines of Wikipedia:Civility, I agree completely with Skidoo. In my private opinion, there were some strong personal reasons behind this VFD as the individual in question has some views about this article and the people who wrote it. To the credit of the nominator, however, the user has never actually disrupted the content of the article. Also, as there was tremendous "Keep" support in response to this VFD, the issue will probably not come up again (hopefully) as to whether or not this article as a right to be on Wikipeida. -Husnock 9 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
Keep, reason's stated. This really the cream of the fancruft crop.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:59 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The redirect is done; all relevant information was already contained in the target article. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:27, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kinga Karokzak[edit]

Delete Really pointless!

Not notable - not worth the candle! A curate's egg 5 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Delete nonsense (possibly fannish, is there some "Big Brother" site or book this is about?) -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
Delete. Never even made it to the house. Mentioned in the Big_Brother_UK_series_6 article. That's good enough. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Delete: She'll never be heard of again — Cuahl 5 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable Big Brother fancruft. Just because you tried to get on the show doesn't mean that you're notable. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
Delete NN --Ragib 6 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)
Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6 Proto t c 6 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
Delete It is important not to tolerate such ephemeral, slapdash material. The article was probably written as a joke - this should not be tolerated either. Speedy removal of articles like this will discourage other comedians.
Keep She was a housemate for 3 days!!! Agent003
Merge and Redirect as suggested above. David | Talk 8 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Delete Not a genuine housemate - Davina and the BB who talked to her, Eugene and Orlaith in the diary room made it clear they were 'not housemates yet'. Never made it to the BB house. Redirect her name to Big Brother UK series 6. Jess Cully 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect, I'm certain that a lot of he 'delete' voters are not British and do not understand just how well known Kinga is here (most of the population of the UK will know who she is, and that's significant!) If it were this situation in America (Big Brother was as popular and as spoken about over there), then this article would certainly be kept. As it is, though, it should at least be merged with the current Big Brother article.
Merge and redirect - whilst worthy of a note on Big Brother UK series 6, she doesn't deserve an article of her own as she was only in the house 3 days and did very little in that time. Drw25 10:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not a housemate, but deserves note in series 6 article. --Sanguinus 01:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: as above. Seeaxid 06:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Deserves a note on the BBUK6 article, but not her own page as she wasn't actually a housemake, and did nothing notable in the Secret Garden. In general, only winners of a series get a page of their own, although those who made a more significant contribution to a BB series or afterwards, such as Jade Goody, merit a page of their own. In response to the comment above about "not understand[ing] how well known Kinga is here" - I am British and resident in the UK, and while her name would currently be recognised by a proportion of the UK population, I doubt it will be the case in a few months... if she becomes famous in the future, an article can always be created. Being well-known for a short time, such as many of the contestants in reality television achieve, is not in itself a reason for a page of their own....Phantomsteve 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Phantomsteve. The JPS 20:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Agree with the above. Agentsoo 00:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EWAs[edit]

Not notable Bobbis 5 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Delete - complete nonsense A curate's egg 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)
Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 5 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
Delete not at all notable football fan club -Harmil 5 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Delete. Almost speed as nonsense. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Delete; nonsense. Econrad 5 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
Don't delete. What harm does it do? Not nonsense, but an important explanation of a widely used acronym. Bassetjb

Well I've never heard of it!

Delete, as above. Also consider Arseblog... --Moritz 5 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Arseblog now tagged vfd as well A curate's egg 6 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Don't delete. Its accurate. I've been to 3 EwAs and they are amazing, when a virtual community becomes real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DublinGooner (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2005
Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:32 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Caldron"[edit]

not notable -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Delete non notable student paper. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)
Abstain Over 1,000 children under 18 according to census 2000. How many people need to be affected by something to consider it notable? For music, it's just two albums on a well known indie label, which might reach far fewer than 1,000 people. "cleanup" at best, though -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
Delete. A high school's student newspaper falls well below the bar for inclusion. It might deserve inclusion in the high school's article but no independent article. Rossami (talk) 8 July 2005 19:37 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian cecchi[edit]

Delete - not quite notable, although close. Also written in a distinctive vanity style that does not encourage retention Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Delete. A sales guy at a media company, not notable. Wikibofh 5 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
Delete; not notable, vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
Delete - NN JoJan 5 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Gets 13 unique Google hits. Plus the article is clear-and-present vanity. -Splash 5 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
'Tis a pity he's not under 25, because we could speedy him under the current CSD proposal if it passes! But either way, delete for non-notable vanity. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:31 (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.

Noting that the only editor to this article has been user:Sometimes and noting that his/her user page is blank, I am going to take the liberty of moving it there in the hopes that we will gain a good editor. Noting that the user has made no other edits, however, I am doubtful. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hidalgo[edit]

Vanity. Userfy. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Delete; not notable, vanity. Econrad 5 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
Userfy. vanity. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 5 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
Delete - vanity JoJan 5 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
Delete nn college student vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
Delete NN --Ragib 6 July 2005 07:01 (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. Rossami (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David_C.Teague[edit]

Vanity Page, Promotional

The IP address 69.104.76.195 appears to be the home of David C. Teague, who is currently spamming the wikipedia about

'Suzuki Beane' The Beatnik classic, was originaly written by Sandra Scoppettone.

He keeps trying to insert mentions of this in various places. Notably he's written this into history in the "Beat Generation" page, where I've reverted his changes twice this past weekend.

The article in question makes it pretty clear what this is all about:

After having been a fan of the original book Suzuki Beane for most of his life, David bought, the rights to the book in 1990 and is now producing a film Version of the book himself.

To see what he's been up to: Special:Contributions/69.104.76.195

Delete not notable (yet, but hey, come back in 5 years) -Harmil 5 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)
Delete unless an article on Suzuki Beane is created, in which case just give him a brief mention there. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
Delete vanity/self-promotion. And plain badly written. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
Delete. As Idont Havaname says, if an article is created on Suzuki Beane, he could be briefly mentioned there as the owner of the rights to the book. DS1953 6 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, vanity. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL July 9, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Sandra Scoppettone, 3r, 1d(nominator). -Splash 02:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra_Scoppttone[edit]

Promotional -- Doom July 5, 2005 17:20 (UTC)

This is a page about an author being hyped by User:69.104.76.195. See also David_C.Teague.

Redirect This page is a misspelling of an (now) existing page, Sandra Scoppettone, which I just created. The new page is as NPOV as I can manage, and while it does mention the book that the spammer wanted mentioned (spammer wins, in a way), it is also a much more complete overview of her career, which Wikipedia should have had in the first place, IMHO. -Harmil 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
Redirect per Harmil. Notable author even if the original article was created by the current holder of the copyright on the author's first book. DS1953 6 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)
Redirect per Harmil. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mycenae, New York[edit]

This article title is for a place that does not exist, while it contains some information for the article that already exists titled Mycenae and some completely irrelevant/wrong information. None of the pertinent information is new or not included in the actual article for Mycenae, so the whole thing should be deleted. Jamesmusik 5 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Delete cut-n-paste nonsense as worded -Harmil 5 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Delete, as Mycenae is certainly not in New York. Dusik 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Delete JoJan 5 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
I guess that the article was created by an ill-informed editor clicking on the disambiguating red link at the top of Mycenae. But Mycenae, New York does exist; it is a hamlet in Onondaga County. I've now completely rewritten the article so it is actually about the New York hamlet, and so I vote keep.--Pharos 5 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
I would suggest the new content be merged into Manlius' page, as it is not notable enough to warant a separate page. Jamesmusik 5 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Merge with Manlius (town), New York. Mycenae does not seem to be a census-designated place. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
Keep with Pharos's edits. It is a real place, so there should bne no problem with it having an article. Wikipedia is not paper. Ground Zero 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
Keep real place with real communities of interest. Well done Pharos for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
Merge as per Idont Havaname. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. CDPs are rather arbitrary. --SPUI (talk) 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite, and since "town" in New York is a county subdivision similar to "township" in other states, then do not merge into "Manlius (town)". A real hamlet can have its own article as has been the standard practice. HollyAm 6 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
- As per Hamlet (place), a hamlet in New York has no government and is generally considered part of the town within which it is located and does not even have defined boundaries. It does not pass the Google test and is not part of the Census divisions. How exactly is it notable? Jamesmusik 6 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)
  - It's notable to people who live there, even though it doesn't have a local level of government. Have a look at Category:Hamlets in New York. The unique status that "hamlets" have in New York implies their semi-official recognition. I don't think the google test really applies to any sort of significant human settlement (nevertheless "Mycenae" and "Onondaga" gets > 4,000 hits); how could there be a popularity test when we have a long list of places with fewer than ten people?--Pharos 6 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  - We have lots of articles on neighbourhoods within cities, see List of neighbourhoods in Toronto. Neighbourhoods have no government, are considered part of the town within which they are located, may not even have defined boundaries, and are not part of the Census divisions. Ground Zero 6 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
Keep real places, thanks Pharos. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)
Keep and expand if (but only if) it's a real place. CDThieme 6 July 2005 19:49 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 6 to delete, 3 to keep, 1 to move to a name that matches other missing entry articles (which would entail keeping the content). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of quizbowl answers[edit]

Doesn't belong (unless I'm missing some higher purpose). Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Keep each page will provide a list of missing topics (i.e. red links) dml 5 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Move This needs to be renamed to match all of the existing missing entry lists. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and the detailed description on the Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics page that explains its use. Poor naming is the real reason for this vote, so let's fix it before someone puts it up for another vote. Of course, we can't rename until voting is over ... sigh. I want real revision control.... -Harmil 5 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
Keep as a list of encyclopedic topics to be created. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
Keep you are missing the purpose. NSR (talk) 5 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
Delete: The first and third are project makers... This list is useless, so are the lists on the individual year lists. There's also pages to place article requests, and this isn't it. Also note that most of redlinks are red because they don't deserve or need pages. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
Well, I've seen questions without answers before, but never answers without questions (OK, maybe "forty-two"). Unless I'm missing something this seems useless. If people want it as a list of "encyclopedic topics" not covered by Wikipedia they need to look at it more closely. I've already redirected a bunch, and many others should not ever be articles (no article on $2.56???? Or St. Denis (accept St. Dionysus)????? OMG!!!!). Sure, there are some big oversights there (The Cancer Ward and Death of Marat come to mind) but as Alec above said: there's a place for requested articles. Delete. -R. fiend 6 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
Delete Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
Delete. this is not "a list of encyclopedic topics", it is a list of quiz answers. I dont see it is any help at all. Bluemoose 6 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, nor wikinamespacic. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:42 (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 no consensus. The votes are: 6 to delete, 4 to keep (not discounting BirgitteSB, who did not sign properly, but who I feel has sufficient participation for her vote to count). -- BD2412 ^talk 20:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ACF Regionals 2000 answers[edit]

Doesn't belong (unless I'm missing some higher purpose). Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Keep you are missing some higher purpose, identifying quizbowl answer that aren't in wikipedia. dml 5 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
Keep thankfully it's not in the main namespace, as long as it couldn't constitute a copyvio, it's just a list of requested articles. Dunc|☺ 5 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
Keep as a list of encyclopedic topics to be created. -- Marcika 5 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
Delete: The first and third are article contributors: Most topics have already been created, most of the rest don't deserve articles for one reason or another. Either way, the list serves no purpose and is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
Delete Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
Delete. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of quizbowl answers. -R. fiend 6 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
Delete, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of quizbowl answers. Bluemoose 6 July 2005 08:17 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, nor wikinamespacic. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:42 (UTC)
Keepthis is linked into from the Community Portal as a list of missing enclopedic articles. Maybe we could move onto some project page, but I would hate to lose the info of how different people refer to these things. I have fixed a number of them today with simple redirects.--BirgitteSB

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 6 to delete, 4 to keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ACF Regionals 2001 answers[edit]

Doesn't belong (unless I'm missing some higher purpose). Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex July 5, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Keep (you are missing some higher purpose) dml 5 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Keep as a list of encyclopedic topics to be created. -- Marcika
Keep, per those two. Ambi 6 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
Delete: The first two are article contributors: Most topics have already been created, most of the rest don't deserve articles for one reason or another. Either way, the list serves no purpose and is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)
Delete Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
Keep - article is part of a project to expand Wikipedia's coverage. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
Delete, p.s. this is not part of the missing articles project. that has an entirely different focus. Bluemoose 6 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic, nor wikinamespacic. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:42 (UTC)
Delete Hiding 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to X window manager, 4r, 1d. -Splash 02:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Window Manager[edit]

Off-topic; should either redirect to "X window manager" or be deleted, as far as I can tell. I vote: ~~Delete.~~Redirect. (you guys convinced me) Dusik 5 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Delete -- a user-manual type entry, it's also misnamed: it's about the Device Manager interface in Windows, not a "Window Manager." DavidH July 5, 2005 18:56 (UTC)
Redirect The term "Window manager" (note lack of cap "M") is already a redirect as described above, and this article is otherwise non-encyclopedic nonsense. -Harmil 5 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
Redirect Harmil is right. The creator of the page should have titled it Device Manager. -Hyad July 5, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
Redirect (as per above.) Window manager is not device manager. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted at 02:03, 5 July 2005 by user:Jimfbleak who commented "drivel". Re-created and again speedy-deleted at 23:17, 5 July 2005 by user:Gwalla who commented "Re-creation of content already discussed and deleted twice, first at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gotem(speech) and then again at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Caughtem)". Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem (slang)[edit]

Neologism. Denni ☯ 2005 July 5 18:09 (UTC)

Delete Neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)
No Neologisms are not neccessarily to be deleted. Pwned falls under that category but seems to have a place in Wikipedia. 63.21.130.18 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
- That's what I was about to write: Write an article as in-depth as Pwn and I'll vote for strong keep. But if we keep deleting the first revision, then the article never has the chance to become as excellent as the Pwn article is, so I guess that's not fair. In this case, I'm not sure whether the term is notable enough, I'll abstain for now. --Moritz 5 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
- That's because Pwn is such an unbelievably popular neolo. This is not. When a VfD says Neolo, NN is implied. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism, WP:WINAD, per deletion policy. Dunc|☺ 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Jaxl 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
Delete as a dic def (regardless of it being slang or not). Also, I remember a similar article being deleted earlier this year. - Mgm|^(talk) July 5, 2005 19:24 (UTC)
Delete: NN Neolo. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
Speedy delete as simple re-creation of content already discussed and deleted twice, first at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gotem(speech) and then again at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Caughtem. Uncle G 6 July 2005 02:34 (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. This decision is without prejudice against the re-creation of an article at this title about the other David Keane mentioned below. Rossami (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Keane[edit]

Vanity page of a non-notable film editor, didn't even bother to link to his IMDB entry. Delete. Eliot 5 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Delete - NN JoJan 5 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
Keep - he is notable. Look!: Producer - filmography

(In Production) (2000s)

  1. Guests of the Ayatollah (2005) (TV) (filming) (executive producer)
  2. The Interrogators (2005) (TV) (filming) (executive producer)
  3. Untitled Afghanistan Project (2005) (TV) (filming) (executive producer)

  4. Targeted: Baby Faced Psycho (2004) (TV) (executive producer)
  5. Targeted: Pineapple Face (2004) (TV) (executive producer)
  6. Targeted: The Evil Genius (2004) (TV) (executive producer)
  7. "Targeted: Osama Bin Laden" (2004) TV Series (executive producer)
  8. "True Warriors" (2004) TV Series (executive producer)
  9. The True Story of Blackhawk Down (2003) (TV) (executive producer) (producer)
     ... aka The True Story of Black Hawk Down (USA: DVD title)
 10. The True Story of Killing Pablo (2002) (TV) (executive producer)
 11. "On the Inside: Convict Air" (2001) TV Series (producer)
 12. "Beach Watch: Newport Lifeguards" (2000) TV Series (producer)

Filmography as: Producer, Director, Writer, Miscellaneous Crew, Sound Department, Actor

Director - filmography (In Production) (2000s)

  1. Guests of the Ayatollah (2005) (TV) (filming)
  2. The Interrogators (2005) (TV) (filming)
  3. Untitled Afghanistan Project (2005) (TV) (filming)

  4. Targeted: Baby Faced Psycho (2004) (TV)
  5. Targeted: Pineapple Face (2004) (TV)
  6. Targeted: The Evil Genius (2004) (TV)
  7. "Targeted: Osama Bin Laden" (2004) TV Series
  8. "True Warriors" (2004) TV Series
  9. The True Story of Blackhawk Down (2003) (TV)
     ... aka The True Story of Black Hawk Down (USA: DVD title)
 10. The True Story of Killing Pablo (2002) (TV)

Filmography as: Producer, Director, Writer, Miscellaneous Crew, Sound Department, Actor

Writer - filmography

  1. Targeted: Baby Faced Psycho (2004) (TV)
  2. Targeted: Pineapple Face (2004) (TV)
  3. Targeted: The Evil Genius (2004) (TV)
  4. The True Story of Blackhawk Down (2003) (TV)
     ... aka The True Story of Black Hawk Down (USA: DVD title)
  5. The True Story of Killing Pablo (2002) (TV)
  6. "On the Inside: Convict Air" (2001) TV Series (writer)
  7. "Beach Watch: Newport Lifeguards" (2000) TV Series (writer)
  8. 'On the Inside: Catching Bank Robbers' (2000)

Filmography as: Producer, Director, Writer, Miscellaneous Crew, Sound Department, Actor

Miscellaneous Crew - filmography (2000s) (1990s)

  1. The True Story of Blackhawk Down (2003) (TV) (somalia crew)
     ... aka The True Story of Black Hawk Down (USA: DVD title)

  2. City Slickers (1991) (production assistant)

Filmography as: Producer, Director, Writer, Miscellaneous Crew, Sound Department, Actor

Sound Department - filmography

  1. The Scroll (1992) (TV) (sound)

Filmography as: Producer, Director, Writer, Miscellaneous Crew, Sound Department, Actor

Actor - filmography

  1. Final Run (1988) (TV) .... Dean

Weak keep - the above is verifiable [18] but the article needs cleanup Cutler July 5, 2005 21:39 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Wikipedia is not IMDb. IMO, only notable TV writers (e.g. J.J. Abrams) or producers (e.g. Mark Burnett) need to be included. I follow the entertainment industry closely and have never heard of ANY of the shows Mr. Keane produced or wrote. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:43 (UTC)
Keep per IMDB entry. Kappa 5 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
Delete. The article is not about the David Keane whose filmography is given above (Guests of the Ayatollah, etc.). It's about Daithi Keane, whose filmography is much shorter:

Editor - filmography

"Turas Teanga" (2004) TV Series
Red Roses and Petrol (2003)
Eireville (2002)
"Fear an Phoist" (2002) TV Series

Miscellaneous Crew - filmography

The Longest Day (2003) (script supervisor) [19]

I am not convinced that David is notable per User:Dcarrano, and Daithi has fewer credits than David. --Metropolitan90 July 5, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

- Annnnd, excellent point, the filmography provided by the unsigned user should be ignored. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 23:49 (UTC)
Comment. There are four options here. One is to rewrite the article to refer to the better known David Keane who IMDB shows when you search it for a David Keane. Another is to create a disambiguation article if David (Daithi) Keane is deemed worthy of an article. Another option is to have the main article about the better known David Keane with a reference stating For information on David (Daithi) Keane, please see our article on David (Daithi) Keane. Another is to delete this article with no articles on either man. My preference is to have an article on the better known David Keane. Capitalistroadster 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
Keep if made into article on the other Keane, otherwise Delete, nn. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
Delete following the hard notability criteria listed for film producers. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
Delete, WP:VAIN. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:43 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, nn, etc. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 01:21 (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) 22:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Convex tiling (Karl Scherer)[edit]

This is an articles, which on careful examination appears to have been created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs

This is a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of tesselation.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8. The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had failed to previously notice them. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Note how in the history it credits Karl Scherer with discoveries in this field, despite it being Karl Scherer who added this content - i.e. original research/vanity.

The term "convex tiling" is not appropriate in the context of tessellations, since it would mathematically be more accurately termed planar tessellation. The term cannot be found in any standard maths textbook, or on google[20] for that matter. The phrase hardly even makes sense; it apparently applies to a tiling of a convex area, not a tiling using convex polygons.

A lot of the text seems to come from here, which is original research, at best.

[text of above intro by User:-Ril-, but containing comments from elsewhere by User:HorsePunchKid, and User:Blotwell ]

Delete ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
Delete duplication and vandalism. Nuff said (note: I'm speaking of the original versions, which no longer appear, but since the person who edited the page into its current form is requesting deleltion, I don't feel I need to take those edits into account). -Harmil 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
- The article looked like this [21] before I made any edits to it. N.b. most of the linked articles and images in it were VfD'd. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
Comment. If the article is deleted, I think that the (rather poor quality) images that used to be in it should be deleted as well (as they will not be used anywhere else, nor likely to be).

Of these images, the following still exist

Image:convex_tiling_2_3_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-3_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_2-3_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_2-4_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_4-6_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4_solutions2.gif
Image:convex_tiling_2-3-4_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3-4_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4-6_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-4-6_solutions2.gif
Image:convex_tiling_1-2-3-4-16_solutions1.gif
Image:convex_tiling_N-1_solutions1.gif

~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Delete. Although I don't believe every single article related to Mr. Scherer and his associates should go as has basically been proposed, it does appear that this is one of the ones that should, as original research. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:46 (UTC)
Delete - original research / bogus content. Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
Delete, and I believe this guy has reached RFC level now because he's created far too many deletable articles. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable. As a point of precedent, though: since you have a reference for it which principally credits other people than Scherer, it's not strictly original research, but it is vanity. —Blotwell 7 July 2005 03:48 (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!) 11:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontalization[edit]

Neologism - FabioB 5 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Delete neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
Delete, redirect to Horizontal. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:45 (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. Rossami (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skitsofritsic[edit]

(Bad) neologism FabioB 5 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Delete; 0 hits on google. [22] Jaxl 5 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Delete JoJan 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
Delete -- Nonsense entry on nonsense word; possible BJAODN. DavidH July 5, 2005 19:03 (UTC)
Delete It isn't really BJAODN material. Sonic Mew July 5, 2005 19:24 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:41 (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) 22:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fugly[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sonic Mew July 5, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Delete dicdef. Jaxl 5 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
Delete slang dicdef. -Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
Delete, slang dicdef already on Wiktionary. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)
Delete — it's already in wictionary. — RJH 6 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Comment from the submitter of the "Fugly" entry: Searching for define:fugly in Google lead to the empty entry in Wikipedia. I responded to the invitation, that such pages constitute, to create an entry for the next person. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then you need to change your relationship to Google, so that Wikipedia entries are not return for define: queries and perhaps Wictionary searches are performed instead.

"define:" searches aren't limited to dictionary definitions. One can search for, for example, "define:Gorge W. Bush". I say redirect to ugliness. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:54 (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 was deleted by nine different admins. Non admin close. Whispe ring 11:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fugly[edit]

Lacks content, does not agree with WP policy, lacks notability, badly written, unsalvagable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete has already been deleted once, delete and salt. Darrenhusted 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach gould[edit]

Random crap but not (I think) in WP:CSD. r3m0t ^talk July 5, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Delete So far, User's only contribution. Non-notable. Possible vanity. Sonic Mew July 5, 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Delete nn. Jaxl 5 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:39 (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) 22:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Barnaby[edit]

This is a non-notable vanity page. Either delete or userfy.Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Delete nn. --Moritz 5 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. Merge this with the infinite. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:38 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 22:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.games.lucas-arts.monkey-island[edit]

Non-notable newsgroup and website. KFP 5 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

I'm hesitant. Doesn't this also apply to others listed here? But still, the article doesn't establish any notability whatsoever, so I say: Delete
Comment: No vote, but take into consideration what is stated above -- there are articles about similar Usenet newsgroups in the List of newsgroups that are much shorter. Jaxl 5 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
Hasn't Monkey Island been out of print for years?? Although it's certainly possible for a Usenet newsgroup to be encyclopedic, I think delete this particular one. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:49 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)
Delete see soc.history.what-if and its VfD for an example of notability with regards to usenet groups. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:06 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 22:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Dance Club, Anchorage, AK[edit]

Spam and not notable. Sietse 5 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Delete ad. Jaxl 5 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
Delete advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
Delete promo. Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:38 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with Charles Connell. Eliot 18:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Fisher[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Sietse 5 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Delete, she is already mentioned in Charles Connell. If there's anything salvageable, merge it into Charles Connell. Jaxl 5 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
Merge/Delete: as per above. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
Merge with Charles Connell. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
Merge then redirect, as the only information independant of her husband, is her birthdate, sister's name and burial place. Seeaxid 11:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Magic: The Gathering deck types Eliot 18:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf deck[edit]

Non-notable Magic: The Gathering deck type. I'm not crossing the line and saying all Magic deck types are non-notable (in fact, I think that there are a few very famous deck types that should have articles here); however, I am saying this one is non-notable since it hasn't been very strong in tournament play. -- Grev -- Talk July 5, 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Delete and/or merge. This is borderline. I agree with the above, but on a technicality I would say that this deck type has been popular in tournaments for many years. That is, many green and green/white weenie styles are based on one or more types of elves which at least include the llanowar. Still, I think a single article (which may already exist) giving an overview of the many deck styles and their use in tournament play would make more sense (much like an article giving an overview on chess openings). As it stands there's only a small amount of information here which could easily be a section in some other Magic-related article. -Harmil 5 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
Merge. One page for discussion of various deck archetypes would be appropriate, and this info should be merged into it. Perhaps under the general term of "Tribal decks" with mention of elves. - FabioB 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
I'd say this could be merged to Magic: The Gathering Deck Types. humblefool ®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 5 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
Merge into a larger, more inclusive category, whose name I will leave to the experts. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:50 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: Something like Magic: The Gathering deck types? I don't know. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
Merge, a list of notable deck types (as in, used in world tournaments) sounds about as encyclopedic as a list of Pokemon moves. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:45 (UTC)
Comment - I started Magic: The Gathering Deck Types. Looking for a consensus on the optimal article layout/organization. Once that is set, I think it's time to merge the elf deck into it (redirect really isn't necessary, but it might be helpful to insert a reference at Elf to Magic the Gathering). I'll be busy until Friday, but if by then no one else has readied the new article, I'll do it then. - FabioB 6 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Notable deck type, not notable outside of an article on deck types. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:55 (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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protard[edit]

Neologism slang. Delete per official policy in WP:WIN drini ☎ 5 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

Delete: Neologist crap. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:36 (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.

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. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

British and Irish current events[edit]

It doesn't contain current events. It's July not May. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Delete unless this is updated, and kept up to date regularly. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Delete. The topic is far too broad for an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -Thepinterpause 5 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)
Delete, so broad as to be basically meaningless and certainly unmaintainable. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Strong keep. Wikipedia has reported Current Events from the early days of its existence (that's why there's a link in the main navigation bar). The fact that nobody has considered anything that's happened in the UK or Ireland particularly noteworthy in the last 6 weeks or so which has not alternatively been listed in Current events is neither here nor there. If you press this deletion request, why have you not also listed Current events, Current sports events, Current science and technology events, Current events in Africa, Current events in Iraq, Current events in Hong Kong and Macao, Chinese current events, Current events in Cisjordan, Canadian current events, United States current events, Current events in Australia and New Zealand, Current events in the European Union, and Current events in Poland, several of which have also not been updated since May? I point out that the regional current events pages were created because the world page was getting far too large. -- Arwel 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
Delete: If nobody will maintain it, it won't be allowed to just sit. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
Keep, first ever sub-global general CE page. Must remember to keep updating. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
Redirect to current events so that the history can be preserved and so that it can someday be revived if there is enough interest. - SimonP July 6, 2005 01:43 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic. Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Should we also delete Current events? Would you care to nominate it, if you feel that way? James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
Keep, important page, although it does need to be updated more regularly. Not being updated (or otherwise being of poor quality) is not a criteria for deletion though. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)
Comment (as I've already voted) - due to the nature of the page, I can't actually update it right now until the VfD notice is removed (needs to be moved, refactored, etc., things that are generally frowned upon for pages currently on VfD without community support. Also note that there are 5 successful month pages so far (2004.xii, 2005.i, 2005.ii, 2005.iii, and 2005.iv) - should these be deleted, too? James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:51 (UTC)
Keep. It's encyclopedic as much as Current events is. It needs to be updated, not deleted. -- Joolz 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
Keep. I'm with Arwel Parry on the appropriateness of the page's continued existance on Wikipedia. This VfD is going to guarentee that the page is going to be kept updated in the future, and although I am a USian, I'm willing to help. func (talk) 6 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
Keep I wasn't aware of the pages existence, but now that I am I will help to keep it up to date. Hiding 7 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
Comment The discussion to date seems to hang on two points:

The Current events page exists so this should as well.
It will (we promise) continue to be maintained.

However neither one nor the other of these points adresses the central issue of this articles continued existance

The Current events page exists for a specific purpose. It, like WP:BJAODN, is deeply rooted in the community regardless of its merits for inclusion. (Any VfD on these pages would fail, and even I am not that much of a deletionist, James F.)
Regardless of how willing editors are to update, this does not belong here. In general, refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for why there also exist Wikinews.

Thus, to restate - not encyclopedic. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Comment I believe Current events exists for a reason beyond that it is rooted in the community regardless of its merits for inclusion.

The only reason an entry like this is not considered encyclopedic by print encyclopedias is because, by their very nature, they cannot keep them current. Encyclopedias, however do contain pages listing events by year, as does Wikipedia. Therefore, due to Wikipedia's nature, these current events pages are encyclopedic, otherwise we draw some arbitrary line upon which events become encylopedic, so as to add them to 2005 pages.
Therefore the issue becomes precisely one of keeping such pages maintained. Far better, in my opinion, to archive pages of this type which become inactive, and leave a redirect behind so that they can be reactivated if people are prepared to maintain them, rather than drag them through a VfD.
Further to that, note Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not apply here as this page and other's like it do not deal in first hand news reports.
And finally, in light of huge list of current events pages as posted by Arwel, I would suggest that this page is encyclopedic as defined by wikipedia community. Hiding 8 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)

In response to the above, yes, current event pages have precedent, but I believe that does not mean we should have one for each country. Our sisterprojects are there for a reason; Wikinews is the place to store news events. Major news events such as the London bombing will end up with encyclopedia articles anyway, of course, because of notability. R adiant _>|< July 8, 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Wikinews does not have anything like the equivalent of June 2005, with lots of links to Wikipedia articles. Think of timelines as a different entrance point into Wikipedia (categories are another entrance point, a topic-oriented entrance point). Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)
So at what point do we write these articles? Where do you draw your arbitrary line in time beyond which an event can be encyclopedic? One year, one month, one day, one hour, one minute or one second? Should we then delete any mention of events happening in July on any page? As Pcb21| states, timelines are encyclopedic, therefore this page is, otherwise Wikipedia has to set some policy on an arbitrary point at which events become encyclopedic. Consensus seems to be to record events as they happen, witness the updating happening constantly around us. Have people who are voting to delete considered the precedent that will be set if this page is deleted? Hiding 8 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

Have I considered the precedent this would set? Yes. Would I be pleased with that precedent? Yes. We draw arbitrary lines around ourselves all the time. Look at WP:MUSIC and WP:Comic for arbitrary guidelines. I would suggest, as a discussion starter, that with the exception of Current Events no news item under six months old be considered encyclopedic. So keep your shirt on, Pcb21, I haven't gone mad! ;) The purpose of Wikipedia it to contain knowledge, not to hold information, and it takes time for knowledge to develop out of information. Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Oh, and as to my short-sightedness, I like to think I'm taking the long view. How many pages have been added in the last month? How many in the last year? How many new administrators have been added in that same amount of time? What's the backlog on VfD right now? Every additional page of marginal inclusionary merit makes it harder to detect and correct vandalism and nonsense. JustMeAgain

Hmm, and all you've done since you got here is vote delete on VfD and list pages for VfD. Let's not forget wikipedia is for the readers, and this page is of use to readers. Hiding 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand much of this is about keeping the specific British & Irish page updated, but it appears that some of the delete camp are also against current events itself! This is lunacy. This month's current events page will become the backbone of our July 2005 article, which itself will be an invaluable resource (containing links to our articles on particular topics hot at the time, as well as to more primary sources) for future people researching this period. There is no question about the encyclopedic nature of these articles and am honestly a bit shocked by the short-sightedness of some commentators. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)
Keep as long as it's maintained in future. adamsan 20:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --bjwebb 20:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the sort of page Wikipedia should be updating, rather than minor trivia. Frankly, if we drop this and keep the Pokemon, I'm off. (That's not meant to be some sort of threat, by the way, I'm just saying this is a really, really strong keep for me) Average Earthman 16:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's not as if nothing noteworthy has occurred in the UK recently (lest we forget).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 09:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I wasn't even aware of the existance of this page before seeing the note on the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard. I'll try and do my bit for it. Thryduulf 16:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regional news bulletin boards can only add to the value of information on Wikipedia, not take away from it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a disgrace that anyone should consider deleting this. 06:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by Jooler (talk · contribs))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still More Karl Scherer[edit]

This VfD concerns

Please read the articles before voting, the titles do not necessarily reflect what you would think the content would be.

These are articles, which on careful examination appears to have been created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs

They are a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of tessellation. They exist solely to push Karl Scherer's ideas of how to categorise tessellations.

Careful examination reveals that edits from other editors to the article are almost entirely copyediting.

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games).

There are also current VfDs concerning other articles he has created at

Delete ~~~~ 5 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
Delete. No-touch tiling and N-tesselation seems to be an original research. Number puzzle and Regular tiling looks like duplications of existing stuff. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:21 (UTC)
Delete: PLEASE GOD PLEASE SEND IT AWAY --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Delete agree this is bogus content. Yikes, how did so much of it get in here! Tobycat 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not original research. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
Delete, RFC Karl. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:51 (UTC)
Delete. What Andreas Kaufmann said. —Blotwell 7 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
Redirect number puzzle to mathematical puzzle; delete the others. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 01:57 (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. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Poppykettle Papers[edit]

"Delete non-notable story book. It has an Amazon sales rank of about 821,000th and 397 Google hits. This arose from the VfD for Poppykettle as an attempt to hold onto that article as a redirect~~, but I think this book is non-notable anyway~~. I mean no bad-faith here. -Splash 5 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Keep — I've had my mind changed by Harmil's excellent research. -Splash 17:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I do not think this book is non-notable, robert ingpen, the illustrator, is not entirely unkbown either. Nitable enough for Wikipedia methinks --Isolani 5 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
Delete: NN --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
- Keep: Published book. Author turns up a couple thousand Googles. Good enough. --Alex12 3 9 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
Keep I'm the author of this page, but not the original VfDed page (Poppykettle). I created this because a) the original was mistitled b) the original was poorly formatted spam c) the original referenced a fairly well known work by a fairly well known illustrator, author and publisher. The fact that it's a low Amazon sales rank (please note: sales rank above is incorrect, as it fails to take into account the much higher rank of the paperback) when it's a 6-year-old coffee table childrens book is not shocking. If this is removed, does that mean we're VfDing all of the SF novels on WP that rank low on Amazon? True Names, a classic SF collection would be removed as its current published form has a similar rank as the paperback version of this book. This current-popularity view of books would seem to be a criteria new to encyclopedias. -Harmil 6 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

Some extra info for those still undecided: I've added a page which describes the Poppykettle Festival, a festival held annually to celebrate this story (actually, the two books which this book was an update of) in Australia. IMHO any book which is celebrated by thousands of people every year can't really be considered non-notable.... -Harmil 09:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published books (except vanity press creations.) Xoloz 6 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)
Keep. How many books have a festival inspired by and about them? I went to that as a child. Ambi 03:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A popular author/artist and a culturally significant book, even if not widely known outside Australia.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lexilink[edit]

Neologism - this page has been around since 2003. Gets 363 Google hits [23] but a lot of these are Wikipedia mirrors. The link [24] is dead. Nice try! Cutler July 5, 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't seem notable (or factual) at all. BorgHunter July 5, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Delete - pretty feeble try I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
Delete: Neologism, nn. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
Keep: Your call of course and I bow to the majority but it does come up time and again in Forteana - I suppose the best example is the Fayette Factor (for more see here). My bad for not expanding and adding other entries relevant to this but I am awfully busy. It may be too obscure and so, although I voted Keep feel free, to ignore that vote (as I would say that after all) --Emperor 6 July 2005 19:05 (GMT)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 2 to delete, 1 to keep (discounting keep vote by anon. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

ROM (MUD)[edit]

Not notable. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

?: Linked page does not exist. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
Page was misspelled on VFD. I fixed it. No vote. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)
Delete, nn. DikuMUD is encyclopedic, as are CircleMud and some other major derivates, but just about any mud had it's own slight variation on the code. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 13:58 (UTC)
Keep. ROM is a major deriv, and is the most widely used codebase today. It is also very different codewise from it's predecessors. Far from not notable. 68.102.56.55 20:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a popular derivative, I looked at mudmagic's game list sorted by codebase at http://www.mudmagic.com/listings/codebase/ and it seems to be the most popular category, doubling the runner-up. Looking on The MUD Connector finds a few hundred MUDs using ROM too. Atari2600tim 08:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I think the authors listed in the article shouldn't be wikilinks when there's nothing else notable about them. It needs some minor modification, but not deleted. Atari2600tim 08:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: 4 to delete (including the nominator); 3 to keep; 1 to merge. A merge with denazification may be in order. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

List of former Nazis influential after 1945[edit]

I think this article is best deleted, a lot of persons named here weren`t ever active nazis and besides, I don`t think a definitive and uncontroversial list can ever be given. Maybe some of the information here could be merged in an article concerning denazification. Isolani 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure about that. After all, we do have List of Nazi Party leaders and officials. Unfortunately, I don't know if the list could be made "definitive and uncontroversial" or that POV could be avoided. --Habap 5 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

comment The thing is that 'Nazi' is ill defined, we have people who were collaborating civil servants... but no nazi party members, we have plenty of people who were 'nazis on paper' but were ideologically lukewarm. I think this subject could be best dealt with with a section in denazification--Isolani 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Delete: Bad, bad list, very loose on def. of "influential. Delete as per above two, with perhaps a section in denazification. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
Keep: Needs a little work but has potential. I actually found the list quite interesting. -Husnock 6 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

'comment' there is still the issue of overlap with denazification, the list may well be 'interesting' (especially after I deleted some of the more wacky entries) but the list itself should not be an article in itself. --Isolani 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Merge Having read the comments above, I think that if we retain the list, it should be merged into the denazification page with an explanatory paragraph stating the criteria for inclusion and an explanation of exactly what role they held (i.e. what years they were in the SS, what rank, etc.) Of course, that could end up being far more work than it's worth.... --Habap 6 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
Delete, too POV. Including parts of in denazification sounds ok with me. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Sadly, this is an important issue. If the entries on the list can be verified, it is potentially useful. Martg76 6 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)
Weak delete. Interesting subject, poorly implemented here. Possibly merge and redirect to denazification. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Keep and expand This is relevant historical information and should be allowed in the Wiki Endurance 15:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted at 18:07, 5 July 2005 by user:Snowspinner. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"circle of trust"[edit]

band vanity? Check WP:MUSIC, perhaps will need a move to get rid of title's quotes Abstain drini ☎ 5 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

?: Linked page does not exist. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted at 18:03, 5 July 2005 by user:Snowspinner who commented "Vanity nonsense". Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vgundam[edit]

Delete - Vanity, my friends, all is vanity. Not notable either. Naturenet | Talk 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

? Linked page does not exist. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:39 (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 20:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetoelectric force[edit]

User:194.158.208.242 unhelpfully contributed some strange physics articles, on topics which are already better covered. Some immediately got changed to REDIRECTs but IMHO most of them should better be deleted entirely for their unusal lemma. --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
Delete: I noticed several of them and changed them to redirects. While the articles were nonsense, the titles seemed to be ones someone might try without knowing any better. This, however, I'd say delete. Salsb 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
Redirect to electromagnetism. I could see a younger or slower student making this mistake, and a redirect harms no one. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
Delete: as per nomination. Bambaiah July 8, 2005 14:39 (UTC)
Merge' with electromagnetism or a more specific sub-article. No one has even tried to tidy up this page, even by simple removing the paragraph indentations so it could be read properly. It reads like a translation of something, possibly old, but it seems to contain some history of the subject. Sandpiper 00:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electrodynamic force[edit]

User:194.158.208.242 unhelpfully contributed some strange physics articles, on topics which are already better covered. Some immediately got changed to REDIRECTs but IMHO most of them should better be deleted entirely for their unusal lemma. --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Delete: Agreed. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
Delete: I noticed several of them and changed them to redirects. While the articles were nonsense, the titles seemed to be ones someone might try without knowing any better. This, however, I'd say delete. Salsb 6 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
Delete Bambaiah July 8, 2005 14:41 (UTC)
Is this a block delete by the same people of a set of physics articles, admittedly apparently poorly translated from french with no knowledge of the wiki page editor, but by someone who is still working on them? redirect to what, what is the existing better alternative of this page? Admittedly it would take a lot of work to fix this, but no one has even tried to see if it makes sense once it is properly translated.Without better justification to delete, KeepSandpiper 00:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 21:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetodynamic force[edit]

User:194.158.208.242 unhelpfully contributed some strange physics articles, on topics which are already better covered. Some immediately got changed to REDIRECTs but IMHO most of them should better be deleted entirely for their unusal lemma. --Pjacobi July 5, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Delete: --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Delete: I noticed several of them and changed them to redirects. While the articles were nonsense, the titles seemed to be ones someone might try without knowing any better. This, however, I'd say delete. Salsb 6 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)
'Delete Bambaiah July 8, 2005 14:42 (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. (anonymous vote discounted)

The predominant argument for deletion was the inability to verify the contents to the standards necessary for an encyclopedia. This decision should not stand as precedent against the re-creation of the article after the album is released and significant. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vheissu[edit]

This article is about music album that may be released someday, but for now it is just speculation on future events. Further, the bulk of the article is an email sent from a band member to the band's manager, which is an unencyclopedic source. Once this album is actually released, with known track names, it would be appropriate to have an article if the album is considered notable. Until then, the article is unverifiable, non-notable, and a likely piece of vanity. (No offense to the band- I hope Thrice thrives. Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:11 (UTC)

Delete: Away with it. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Delete until its real and then it may come back. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, notability not established. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
Keep: This is not speculation, the album is real. It is recorded. It will be released later this year. The information contained comes straight from the band. --Yoyomattys 6 July 2005 10:59 (EST)
Keep. There is a great deal of information about the album, and since a well-written article trumps concerns of notability, I would say hang onto it. Why rewrite this after the album is released? There are plenty of other album writeups that were created before the album was released, and kept. The band is signed with a major record label (Island Records), thus notable, and this album is going to be notable when it is released anyway. If not kept, at least merge with Thrice. - McCart42 (talk) 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Here's an example of an album that was posted almost a month before it was released. Information was there that it was on a set path to be released, and I see no problem with posting it as soon as it's confirmed; this happens with many albums by popular groups and I don't see why it should be discouraged. If it is delayed or cancelled, then the writeup can be deleted, or if the artist is notable enough and the project was big enough, kept with information as to why it was delayed or canceled. - McCart42 (talk) 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

Please note that this article has no external sources - the only reference is an email. That's not sufficient sourcing for anything. -Willmcw 21:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I say keep it. They are a notable band, and there has not been any plans to cancel or delay the release of this album. (Unsigned vote by 208.47.92.58)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – AB CD 19:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Thomas[edit]

SPEEDIED. Fawcett5 6 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Delete non-notable founder of a non-notable studio. "Nathan Thomas" "Shadow Shade" yields 0 Google hits and "Shadow Shade Studios" yields 3 (one of which is a link to Nathan Green, apparently also the founder of the same studio who also has a VfD just below.-Splash 5 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Delete NN --IByte 5 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:33 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be 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 a recreation of Nathan Thomas --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Nathan Green[edit]

Delete non-notable founder of a non-notable studio. "Nathan Green" "Shadow Shade" yields 5 Google hits and "Shadow Shade Studios" yields 3 (one of which is a link to the shortpages list at WP). Apparently also the founder of the same studio as Nathan Thomas who also has a VfD just above. This may be a hoax then — he has two names.-Splash 5 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Delete: NN. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:32 (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. – AB CD 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nemargut[edit]

A family name. Nothing but a bit of etymology --Nabla 2005-07-05 22:38:35 (UTC)

Delete: Not Found...237...NN. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:35 (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. – AB CD 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Stationary[edit]

I don't know anyone who had heard of "Currently Stationary" or any of the List of phrases inspired by currently stationary. This seems very likely to be some person's attempt to make this blog popular for no reason. "Currently Stationary" does not pass the Google Test. There is only 1 non-wikipedia site that refers to it: http://www.answers.com/topic/engrish. And that site only links to the page because "Currently Stationary" has the word "engrish" in it. By clicking the link I found out Answers.com only copied what was on Wikipedia for the definition of "Currently Stationary". So there are really no outside references to "Currently Stationary" other than the Wikipedia entries. Also, I am inclined to believe all the major additions to the webpage are by the same person, who keeps changing his or her IP address (usually begining with 203.24.100.***) or creating new accounts to make it look like he or she is several different people. While it does seem "Currently Stationary" is in fact a real blog. It has no pages linking to it using Google's link feature. Type "link: http://currently-stationary.blogspot.com/" into the google search bar to see what I mean. Perhaps there are at most 10 people who have read this blog and think its important, but that certainly is not enough to warrant a wikipedia entry. -Hyad

Delete, not notable. --PHenry 5 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
Blog no longer exists... only was in existence for six months... entries (if you follow link in article) averaged about 1 comment each... 1 Google hit at best... yup, Delete, vanity/not notable. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
Delete: NN, non-existent. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
Delete non notable defunct blog. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
Delete. Short-lived blog with no appreciable effect on anything. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
Delete. Jean-Paul Sartre said, "Hell is other people." Somewhere I read a comment updating that to the Internet age: "Hell is other people's home pages." We must now add: "Hell is other people's blogs." JamesMLane 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
Delete this crap already! Hasn't it been 5 days yet? Fingercuffs 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases inspired by currently stationary[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Currently_Stationary -Hyad July 5, 2005 22:59 (UTC)

The heck?? Delete, either hoax or not notable; I'm not sure which, but one or the other. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:13 (UTC)
Delete along with Currently Stationary. Those phrases don't seem to be anything special, either. Jaxl 6 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
Delete: Crap. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)
Delete non notable phrases. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable phrases from non-notable defunct blog. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
Delete. JamesMLane 8 July 2005 09:37 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be 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 keep as bad-faith nomination. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:52 (UTC)

Chuck Scarborough[edit]

Cause them New York peeps want to delete Philly peeps so I am givin' em right back to them! PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Speedy Delete PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)
- Not eligible for speedy. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: see my reasoning in the following VfD. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Bad faith VfD? - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Passes WP:BIO - Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
Keep - extremely bad faith VfD. -Splash 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Speedy Keep invalid nomination. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:38 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Sue Simmons[edit]

Cause them New York peeps want to delete Philly peeps so I am givin' em right back to 'em PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Speedy Delete PhillyDude!
- Not eligible for speedy. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: see my reasoning in the following VfD. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Bad faith VfD? - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Passes WP:BIO Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Keep - extremely bad faith VfD. -Splash 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Keep - even though my Philly news team bios were deleted ....
Speedy Keep invalid nomination. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:38 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Huff[edit]

Cause them New York peeps want to delete Philly peeps so I am givin' 'em right back to them! PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Speedy Delete PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)
- Not eligible for speedy. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: see my reasoning in the following VfD. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Bad faith VfD? - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Passes WP:BIO. You can see her weekends on the Today show on NBC. Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
- As a side note, she was on Today this morning. Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)
Keep - extremely bad faith VfD. -Splash 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Speedy Keep invalid nomination. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cho[edit]

Cause them New York peeps want to delete Philly peeps so I am givin' em right back to them! PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Speedy Delete 5 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
- Not eligible for speedy. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: see my reasoning in the following VfD. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Bad faith VfD? - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Passes WP:BIO. Cho is also a former World News Now anchor who was voted one People Magazine's 50 Most Beautiful People in 2003 and has many fan sites. - Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Keep - extremely bad faith VfD. -Splash 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Speedy Keep invalid nomination. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)
Keep - I've seen Liz on my TV many times. Definitally notable. --Vile Requiem 04:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ritter[edit]

Cause them New York peeps want to delete Philly peeps so I am givin' 'em right back to 'em! PhillyDude! 5 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

Speedy Delete 5 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
- Why do you think this is eligible for speedy? --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
Merge and Delete: if there is a page for the station. I live in the Philly area. I said delete the Philly anchor, I say delete this one too. No need for locals. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
- If I don't tell you, someone will. The terms of the GFDL mean that we can't merge and delete as we have to preserve the page history. Also observe this users' user page and talk page; they've already had a warning about vandalism. -Splash 6 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
  - All these anchors are not just local anchors, as they are or have been on national broadcasts, plus their stations are seen outside the United States and in various places inside the United States. Can you watch a Philly anchor sitting in some Latin American or Caribbean country sipping cocktails on the beach, methinks not. This is more Philly vs. NYC nonsense. Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:BIO. Bad faith VfD? - Thatdog 6 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
Keep - extremely bad faith VfD. -Splash 6 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
Keep - Bad faith nomination. Passes WP:BIO. Ritter is also a correspondent with ABC News. - Spotteddogsdotorg 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Speedy Keep invalid nomination. Xoloz 6 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)
Keep - I think it's well explained above why. --Vile Requiem 04:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeipod com[edit]

Not encyclopedic neither NPOV - Delete --IByte 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

Delete - this site does not give the ipods to you free. You have to refer other via a type of pyramid scheme. Even if they did just give them away with no strings attached, it still shouldn't be on Wikipedia. -Hyad July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Delete vanity and POV. Jaxl 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Delete: advertising, POV, not notable. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 6 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
The user who created the page (67.52.107.52 (talk · contribs)) just blanked the VfD for the second time... --IByte 7 July 2005 00:44 (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. – AB CD 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communist News Network[edit]

Sub-substub that will almost certainly never have any significant content. To my knowledge, childish pejoratives do not usually rate articles of their own. --PHenry 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Delete, well said. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:04 (UTC)
Delete: I prefer Fox, anyway. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
Delete: perfectly good info but better where it is, at CNN. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 04:02 (UTC)
Delete per the nominator. Kaibabsquirrel 7 July 2005 00:44 (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. – AB CD 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z. Vance Wilson[edit]

This is a loopback from the school's page to itself. Either the page should be deleted or the redirect should be replaced with biographical information.

Delete no need for the page, redir or bio. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
Delete pointless. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:28 (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. – AB CD 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buttfighting[edit]

Nonsense. Malathion 5 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Agreed. This is spam. Remove. --Michiel Sikma 5 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
...wow. --SPUI (talk) 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
Delete: Schieße.--Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
Delete book is real but I don't see the point of this nonsense. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)
Delete book promotion/advertising. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
Delete because... uh... oh, just do it. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 02:25 (UTC)
Delete and if this one isn't worth saving, check out the other three top page creations from the anonymous user that created this one. Their all in the same vein, on the same subject. Icelight 6 July 2005 22:26 (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. – AB CD 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scout Troop 1104[edit]

I don't think we need articles on individual Scout troops (this could be Schools all over again), and we certainly don't need ones with near zero content like this. seglea 5 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Delete Agreed. -Hyad July 6, 2005 00:07 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 00:17 (UTC)
Delete: nn. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Jaxl 6 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
Delete definitely nn. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nn and very weak MaJoRleaGueSocCeRfReAK777
Delete non notable troop. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
Delete — schools usually have a physical infrastructure built to last many decades, an organization of dedicated professional teachers and administrators, and a sizeable population of students. They also require taxation and/or election levy's to support. A BS Troop has a handful of volunteers, perhaps 20 members, and meet in facilities built for other purposes. They're a bit like an after school club. So there's really very little comparison between the two. :) — RJH 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
Delete Actually, there is still an infastructure to Scouting, and some of the buildings used are built as Scout huts. But this article still does not include enough content to warrent keeping. Sonic Mew July 6, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
Delete If there were any content, it could be merged with their area council. Dystopos 7 July 2005 21:34 (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. – AB CD 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thebrokenoperation[edit]

Vanity; not notable Groeck 6 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Delete pointless spam/promotion. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
Delete NN vanity --IByte 6 July 2005 01:22 (UTC)
Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
Delete, blog (or what appears to be a blog) vanity. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity. Dusik 8 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – AB CD 19:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Landeryou[edit]

nonsensical and non-encyclopedic Cnwb 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Speedy as nonsense. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

I've just speedied this, as it was an absolutely clear cut speedy candidate, with no need to wait out the seven days. Landeryou is notable, but nothing could be salvaged from this article. Ambi 6 July 2005 01:35 (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!) 11:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting[edit]

Neology. Not notable. Google returns only one entry for this context. Not listed on urban dictionary. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

This is a hoax. I vote to delete'. -- Unsigned comment by Cfarivar also
This is a vibrant community - the proposer of the vote has something against it -- Unsigned comment by 81.86.252.187
- Reply to comment I'm sorry if it appears that way, I have nothing against greenlighting. I proposed the deletion because I came across the article, which seems to be a neologism, an attempt to try to create a new term. To defend the article, the best thing you can do is to show proof otherwise. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  - Reply to comment If you read the Wikipedia entry, you can find information regarding the matter --Maiael 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
    - Reply to cooment Regardless of whether it is a neologism, it is not notable enough to merit an article. See: google test.-- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)
I agree, as a member of the forums, this definition is important. -- Unsigned comment by 128.143.43.129
It's an ongoing social phenomenon. I have noticed youth circles all around referring to it. Vessbot 5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
As an active member of the Greenlighting community, I feel that this Wikipedia entry is informative and important to our cause. --Maiael 5 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
- As an active non-sock-puppet, I feel that your contributions are suspicious at best. Especially since User:Cordell_Walker manifestly knows a thing or two about Something Awful (or at least the Forums thereof). eritain 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
Delete by the way, 81.86.252.187 keeps changing the wording to hide the neutral fact statements, so look at the history when voting. More over, this article goes agains the Official Policy of Wikipedia stated at WP:WIN. drini ☎ 5 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)
- - - Reply to cooment Sorry - I'll stop -
Delete Nonsense. I am curious what part of policy it violates, though. --Habap 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Oh and the term is apparently 3 days old. If that's not a neologism, I don't know what is! --Habap 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

- Reply to comment' I dont understand what you mean by that. Because we just now decided that we wanted a wikipedia entry, and we are just now receiving major attention from other blogs and news sites, this makes us a "neologism"? We have been around for quite awhile, but unfortunately, greenlighting is already a popular term; we were overshadowed almost immediately. Greenlighting is a popular movie production term that has garnered a very large internet following. Perhaps you have heard of project greenlight. Also, if you google greenlighting, you can see that it is a common term for giving something approval. It is very hard to be "heard" when so many people are already using the term in mainstream communication.--Maiael 5 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

So, the term was applied to this activity for the first time a few days ago, but actually is normally used for something else? I have heard of Project Greenlight and if greenlighting is actually a popular movie term, this article needs massive revision. I applaud your efforts in creating a new meaning for a word over a couple of days, but until it has been in common use for some considerable period of time, it is inappropriate to include it in Wikipedia. Add it to one of those online slang dictionaries first. --Habap 6 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Whether this is an important social phenonmenon or a hoax, it obviously has some support behind it. Like it or not, "Greenlighting" is a topic of some significance in some way, and deserves a wikipedia article. Also, a great deal of hoaxes have wikipedia articles. (also see list of hoaxes). Cordell Walker 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
Keep - this is an interesting case. The article itself, and the content therein, had a major effect on shutting down the hoax. The perpetrators basically folded after their scheme was revealed here. Despite that, the backers of this hoax are still attempting to control the content and existence of the article -O^O 6 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Delete, admitted neologism. --bainer (talk) 6 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
Keep, easily noteworthy enough to not bother deleting. --Trypa (talk) July 6, 2005 05:26 (UTC)
Delete - Not only is this non-notable at best, there is something fishy going on with the voting. This page (seems) to alternate between protected and blank. Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)
Wait and see. If this hoax gets picked up and widely circulated, it's something that people will be looking for authoritative information on, and WP ought to carry an explanation. If it never makes it into the public consciousness (defined, at a guess, as appearing on a well-viewed talk show or in a wire story picked up by multiple mainstream newspapers), but rather dies a merciful death, the article should die just as quickly. (I don't find the 'neologism' guideline to apply at the moment -- it's not an attempt to introduce the term, but a description of events relating to someone else's introduction.) eritain 6 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
- Not appropiate/encyclopedic to have ~~nonsense~~ trivial articles in case something enters the Zeitgeist. (Refer to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The key word is extrapolation.) Aaron Brenneman 6 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
Keep, for now. I initially nominated it for VfD, but this will help dispell the hoax. -- BMIComp (talk)
- I wanted to wait and see, and I have... but since this hasn't become too big, I vote to Delete. -- BMIComp (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia members have been whining for at least a year on how Something Awful is insignificant and doesn't even deserve its own article (see Talk:Something Awful forums), so why should this get an even bigger article?! Grievre 6 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)
Delete - somethingawfulcruft. -- Cyrius|✎ 6 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)
Delete, just because several Wikipedians frequent SA doesn't mean that this SA thread is notable here. R adiant _>|< July 6, 2005 14:02 (UTC)
Delete - It doesn't seem to have gotten much attention outside of SA, the Metafilter discussions (apparently started by an SA member), and Wikipedia itself. The Kaycee Nicole hoax was much more widespread, and even it only has a stub. If it gets widespread media attention, it can be re-created at that point. Chuck July 6, 2005 14:45 (UTC)
Keep - This article was a key part in eliminating the propagation of the hoax and is referenced on the hoax's index page as being so. This Wikipedia article stands as a pillar to eliminating the hoax and is a source of information for those looking to disprove the rumor. Also, there is no conclusive evidence that the MetaFilter poster was actually a member of the Something Awful forums. - Unsigned comment by 69.209.146.223

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). --Habap 6 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

That implies there are actually people looking for information to debunk the hoax. I have yet to see any evidence that the hoax has actually spread very far or has fooled any significant number of people. And no, there is no conclusive proof that the Metafilter poster is an SA member--which is precisely why I wrote "apparently started by an SA member," and not "started by an SA member." Chuck July 6, 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Delete - I'm a SomethingAwful member, and I think this article is compeletely useless to Wikipedia. Their site is down now anyway. Spindle 6 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism/hoax. Starting to get some publicity. Take it down before anything mainstream picks it up.
Delete, this would be much closer to helping spread a new hoax than it would be to reporting on an already notable hoax. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 00:14 (UTC)
Delete vain neologism that is non-notable. Basically hoax-cruft with a bit of forum-cruft in the mix.-Splash 7 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
Delete because the hoax was insignificant as hoaxes go. It was only a 4-day hoax that received no major media attention. Bugmuncher 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable non-event. Tobycat 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Why? Why are so many of you so opposed to having this on wikipedia. Is it going to make your copy of the hardbound Wikipedia too thick? Is it going to slow down your internet surfing abilities? Greenlighting was important to us. We wanted to see just how much attention we could get by creating this, and we received quite a bit. I am sorry that some of you feel that this is non-notable, but we feel that it is. Actually, there is a community of over 50,000 that are aware of this hoax and a vast sum of them approved of it. I think it is important that it is documented so that people who find out about this at a later date, or people who want to find out what it was all about, or even people who want to find out if its a hoax or not, can found out exactly what happened. --Maiael 7 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up your statements that it received much attention, or are the claims of the attention it received as made up as those of greenlighting itself? Chuck July 7, 2005 03:47 (UTC)
I don't have access to the referrer logs as I am not the admin of greenlighter.org. Since I have no control over being able to prove how many sites linked to greenlighters.org, and the numerous, very very numerous, forum topics started about us, such as the pbonline forums, genmay, metafilter, and other big names, I guess there isn't much I can do other than argue here. So do whatever you want with the Wiki. It's not worth arguing with internet scholars anymore. I hope ya'll get paid for this.

we got over 2 million hits --Maiael 7 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

Keep I mean c'mon.
Strong Delete - Non-encyclopedic in a dozen different ways. "We wanted to see just how much attention we could get by creating this, and we received quite a bit." says it all. - Marvin01 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

This has become a true internet-based phenomenon. People are actually Greenlighting, kinda disturbing but people want to know how it got started. Toothing is still up, why not delete that, that was a hoax.

Right you are. Thanks for the cleanup idea - Vfd for Toothing Let's dispose of multiple weak hoaxes at once. --Habap 7 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, forum vanity. Quale 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
Delete forum vanity. ~~Almost~~nearly everything that goes on on internet forums like this is unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
Delete failed forum hoax, doesn't really deserve an article. Jtkiefer July 7, 2005 22:58 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Marvin01. Dusik 8 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
Delete. Seems like a quickly passing fashion.

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